Topic: Some people believe that all wild animals should be protected. Others say that only a few wild animals should be protected. Discuss both views and give your opinion.


There is an argument about whether we should protect all the fauna or not. Whilst many people believe that every kind of animal should be put under our consideration, I believe that we had better put a priority on some specific kinds.


On the one hand, protecting all wild species tends to be a long-term endeavor. To begin with, as a result of rapid industrialization, the natural environment that provides animals with shelter, habitat, and food has decreased. For example, because a wide range of factories on the river's bank discharge their chemical waste into the water, the aquatic environment is detrimentally affected leading to the decline in the variety of fish. Furthermore, animals play a vital role in biodiversity and the food chain, supplying us with meat and flora with fertilizer from their decomposition. Thanks to early protection such as breeding programmes, we can halt the decline in reproduction caused by overexploitation and uncontrolled poaching, which will eventually lead to extinction.


On the other hand, protecting a certain species is far more feasible and urgent for following reasons. First, protecting wild animals on a large scale is exorbitant for the reason that each conservation campaign and sanctuary requires a significant amount of resources and funding. Instead, we should focus on pressing challenges such as starvation and deadly diseases that many developing countries have struggled with. Second, providing protection to multiple species that are not endangered results in the overpopulation of wild creatures, which could pose a threat to our survival. For example, if the number of rats, mice, and grasshoppers impairing agrarian production increases, farmers may have to shoulder a financial burden to cover the loss and subsistence expenses.


In conclusion, wild animals should be protected owing to their vital roles; however we should prioritize endangered species in order to address other emergency problems.


Thank you very much for your comments.

There is an argument about whether we should protect all the fauna (wrong word) or not.

Better: - There is no argument.

Many species of animals are under the threat of extinction due to human activities such as hunting and deforestation.

Whilst many people believe that every kind of animal should be put under our protection consideration, I believe that we had better put a priority on some specific kinds.


On the one hand, protecting all wild species would tends to be a long-term endeavor. To begin with, as a result of rapid industrialization, (This sentence has nothing to do with long-term endeavours.) the size of natural wilderness areas environment that provides animals with shelter, habitat, and food has decreased. (Environment does not decrease. ) In addition, For example, because a wide range of factories on the river's bank discharge their chemical waste into the water, the aquatic environment ecosystem is detrimentally affected leading to the decline in the variety of fish. Furthermore, animals play a vital role in biodiversity and the food chain, supplying us with meat and flora (That does not make sense. Meat mainly comes from chickens, pigs, cows and sheep. These animals do not need protection.) with fertilizer from their decomposition. Thanks to early protection such as breeding programmes, (That is a specific-species strategy, not all species.) we can halt the decline in reproduction caused by overexploitation and uncontrolled poaching, (That has no relation to "long-term endeavors") which will eventually lead to extinction. (Your writing has poor coherence and cohesion. It is a jumble of ideas. You need a logical sequence of sentences. Your topic sentence is about the long-range planning to protect all species. None of the other sentences are on that topic.)

On the other hand, protecting a certain species is far more feasible and urgent for following reasons. First, protecting wild animals on a large scale is exorbitant (That belongs in the previous paragraph. You need logical statements about certain species.) for the reason that each conservation campaign and sanctuary requires a significant amount of resources and funding. (That belongs in the previous paragraph.) Instead, we should focus on pressing challenges such as starvation and deadly diseases that many developing countries have struggled with. (That is completely off-topic. There is nothing about poverty or human issues in the topic.) Second, providing protection to multiple species that are not endangered results in the overpopulation of wild creatures, which could pose a threat to our survival. For example, if the number of rats, mice, and grasshoppers impairing agrarian production increases, farmers may have to shoulder a financial burden to cover the loss and subsistence expenses. (The topic is not about protecting pests.


In conclusion, wild animals should be protected owing to their vital roles; however we should prioritize endangered species (You never mentioned even one of these species.) in order to address other emergency problems

Thank you so much! Thanks to your feedback, I currently realise my mistakes and problems. I will improve my essay then try my best and do better next time. Sincerely thanks!

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?

Your main problem is writing cohesive and coherent paragraphs. A paragraph is not an random assemblage of sentences. It is a structure, organized, logical frame for presenting your arguments.

https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-write-a-perfect-paragraph#5-tips-for-structuring-and-writing-better-paragraphs

Guidelines for Writing Paragraphs

  1. Make the first sentence your topic sentence. The first line of your first paragraph sets up what information is to come as your audience reads on. Every good paragraph starts with a central focus that the rest of the paragraph will support.
  2. Provide supporting evidence in the middle sentences. These sentences include follow-up information to your key sentence. They are used to convince your reader to believe the argument point, and give them everything they need to see your point of view. Examples from your personal knowledge or experience are excellent, and not that many IELTS essay writers take advantage of it. References to literature, journals, or newspaper articles are also good. However, do not write things that are obviously wrong or absurd.
  3. Make your last sentence a mini conclusion and transition to the next paragraph. A conclusive sentence can reinforce the topic, and seal your argument in a satisfactory way. It also guides the reader to anticipate the idea in the next paragraph. This next paragraph can continue on elaborating the same idea, or it can be an opposing point of view. The last sentence of each paragraph should briefly summarize the information.
  4. Know when to start a new paragraph. A paragraph break is necessary when starting a new topic, a new idea, a new argument, or providing a "white space" break to give readers a pause to think about your argument. While there is no set amount of sentences or words required per paragraph, in some instances, a single paragraph may consist of a single sentence. In IELTS, the body paragraphs for Task 2 should be balanced, or about equal in information density. That makes a pleasing structure for the whole essay. In Task 1. the third paragraph with the most detail, is usually the longest.
  5. Use transition words, but do not overuse them. Transition words and phrases help tie together separate paragraphs, as well as sentences within a paragraph, connecting them to form a coherent idea. They help the reader to keep track of the ideas and understand how they relate to each other. However, do not begin every sentence with a transition word; use them judiciously and sparingly.

Would you mind check my essay again, please? I try to improve my problems and I don't know whether i make my essay better or not. Please help me assess it. Thank you very much!



A wide range of animal species are currently on the verge of extinction due to human activities such as poaching and deforestation. Whilst many people believe that every kind of animal should be put under our protection, I believe that we had better put a priority on some specific kinds.


On the one hand, protecting all wild animals would maintain ecological sustainability. To begin with, there is an interconnection between wild animals and nature that we need to preserve. To be specific, the decrease in the quantity of several animals such as tigers would lead to irrevocable changes in the food chain. Moreover, protecting the entire fauna creates the opportunity for our future generations to see the entire beauty of nature rather than a small part of it.

On the other hand, conserving a certain species is far more affordable. We should prioritize some creatures that are in the red list, namely elephants and foxes. Because a national park or sanctuary needs a massive resource and budget, we just afford to construct some which are necessary and emergency. As a result, we can pay a thorough and dedicated attention to provide shelter and habitat to a limited range of animals.

In conclusion, providing protection to wild animals is necessary due to their vital role in the ecological system. However I approve that we had better preserve endangered species, which is more feasible and urgent.

A very useful phrase for this topic is "keystone species."

Keystone species are those which have an extremely high impact on a particular ecosystem. Keystone species are critical for the overall structure and function of an ecosystem, and influence which other types of plants and animals make up that ecosystem. Thus, in the absence of a single keystone species, many ecosystems would fail to exist.

https://biologydictionary.net/keystone-species/

The name "keystone" comes from the ancient architecture of the stone arch. If the keystone crumbles, the entire structure collapses.

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.

Your essay has just over 230 words, not enough for the minimum. So you will lose points for "task response."


A wide range of animal species are currently on the verge of extinction due to human activities such as poaching and deforestation. Whilst many people believe that every kind of animal should be put under our protection, I believe that we had better put a priority on some specific kinds.


On the one hand, protecting all wild animals would maintain ecological sustainability. To begin with, there is an intricate interconnection between wild animals and the habitats in which they live nature that we need to preserve. To be specific, the decrease in the quantity numbers of predators several animals such as tigers would lead to irrevocable changes in the food chain. Moreover, protecting the an entire food web fauna creates the opportunity for our future generations to see the entire beauty of nature rather than a small part of it. However, this strategy entails such a high cost and so much land that it is not very feasible. (Note how the last sentence in the paragraph makes a wonderful transition to the next paragraph.)

On the other hand, conserving a carefully selected list of certain species is far more affordable. We should prioritize some creatures that are in the red list, namely elephants and foxes. Because a national park or sanctuary needs a massive resource and budget, we can just afford to construct some the few which are most necessary and critical. emergency. As a result, we can pay a thorough and dedicate our attention to provide shelter and habitat to a limited range of animals.

In conclusion, providing protection to wild animals is necessary due to their vital role in the ecological system. However I approve believe that we had better preserve a few endangered species in their natural habitats, which is more feasible and also urgent, since without action, they will be gone for good.