Many people think that we should protect all animals in danger of extinction, others think we should only protect animals that are useful for us. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

A highly debated issue today concerns whether humans should safeguard all endangered species on the planet or just prioritize animals beneficial to humans. This essay will first closely examine both views before presenting my final thoughts
On the one hand, there are good grounds for efforts to save all animals facing extinction. Advocates believe that each species has a role to play in the nature and the disappearance of one can break the delicate balance of the ecosystem, causing irreversible consequences that could negatively impact humans’ development. Also, many animals’ values may go beyond their current advantages to humans. In fact, many of them could have untapped potential for medicine or food.
On the other hand, proponents of the priority of safeguarding animals beneficial to our kinds emphasize on two compelling reasons. First, they argue that extinction and survival struggles are part of the natural evolutionary process, and humans can do little to alter this course. Another explanation is the limitations of available budgets and resources of governments and conservation organizations worldwide. It is consequently more sensible to allocate these limited sources only to protecting animals that are directly useful for human in order to create better life.
Upon weighing both views, I believe that in the short term, useful species for us should be protected first to bring direct benefits to humans to guarantee a decent life. For the long-run development of human being, governments and pressevation groups should make an effort to establish and implement initiatives that appropriately allocate money and other resources to conserve all endangered species. The combination of the short-term and long-term conservation plans could facilitate the coexistence of humans and animals in upcoming centuries.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"A highly debated issue today" -> "A contentious issue currently"
Explanation: "Contenious" is a more precise term that conveys the level of disagreement and debate, and "currently" adds a temporal specificity that enhances the academic tone.
"safeguard all endangered species" -> "protect all endangered species"
Explanation: "Protect" is a more commonly used and academically appropriate term in the context of conservation, compared to "safeguard," which can imply a broader range of actions beyond conservation.
"just prioritize animals beneficial to humans" -> "only prioritize species that are beneficial to humans"
Explanation: "Only" is more precise and formal than "just," and specifying "species" clarifies the subject being discussed.
"good grounds for efforts" -> "strong rationale for conservation efforts"
Explanation: "Strong rationale" is a more formal and precise term that better fits the academic context, replacing the vague "good grounds."
"each species has a role to play in the nature" -> "each species plays a crucial role in the ecosystem"
Explanation: "Ecosystem" is the correct term for the biological environment, and "plays a crucial role" is more specific and academically appropriate than "has a role to play in the nature."
"the disappearance of one can break the delicate balance" -> "the extinction of one can disrupt the delicate balance"
Explanation: "Extinction" is the correct term for the process of a species disappearing, and "disrupt" is a more precise verb than "break" in this context.
"could negatively impact humans’ development" -> "could negatively affect human development"
Explanation: "Affect" is more commonly used in academic writing than "impact" when referring to the influence on a broader concept like development.
"many animals’ values may go beyond their current advantages to humans" -> "many species may possess values beyond their current utility to humans"
Explanation: "Possess values" is more precise and formal than "have values," and "utility" is a more academic term than "advantages."
"emphasize on" -> "emphasize"
Explanation: "Emphasize" is sufficient without "on," which is grammatically incorrect in this context.
"useful for our kinds" -> "beneficial to our kind"
Explanation: "Beneficial" is more specific and formal than "useful," and "our kind" is grammatically correct.
"to bring direct benefits to humans to guarantee a decent life" -> "to provide direct benefits to humans, thereby ensuring a decent life"
Explanation: "Provide" is more formal than "bring," and "thereby ensuring" is a more precise and formal way to indicate the consequence.
"human being" -> "human beings"
Explanation: "Human beings" is the correct plural form for referring to the species as a whole.
"pressevation groups" -> "conservation groups"
Explanation: "Conservation" is the correct term for organizations focused on protecting the environment and species.
"make an effort to establish and implement initiatives" -> "strive to establish and implement initiatives"
Explanation: "Strive" is a more formal and active verb than "make an effort," which is somewhat informal and vague.

These changes enhance the precision, formality, and clarity of the essay, aligning it more closely with academic writing standards.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Task Response: 8

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively addresses both views regarding the protection of endangered species. The first paragraph outlines the argument for protecting all endangered species, emphasizing their ecological roles and potential benefits to humans. The second paragraph presents the opposing view, focusing on the natural evolutionary process and resource limitations. However, while both perspectives are discussed, the balance could be slightly improved by providing more depth to the arguments for protecting all species.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, consider expanding on the implications of losing species beyond ecological balance, such as cultural or ethical considerations. Additionally, integrating specific examples or case studies could strengthen the arguments presented.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear position that prioritizes the protection of useful species in the short term while advocating for the conservation of all species in the long term. This dual approach is articulated well, but the transition between the two positions could be more fluid. The phrase "upon weighing both views" indicates a shift, but it could be more explicitly connected to the preceding arguments.
- How to improve: To maintain clarity and consistency, use transitional phrases that reinforce the connection between the two positions. For instance, explicitly stating how the short-term focus on useful species can lead to a broader long-term strategy for all species would strengthen the coherence of the argument.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents ideas clearly, with each paragraph dedicated to a specific viewpoint. However, while the ideas are supported with reasoning, there is a lack of specific examples or data that could further substantiate the claims. For instance, mentioning specific endangered species or successful conservation efforts could enhance the persuasiveness of the arguments.
- How to improve: Incorporate specific examples or statistics to support claims. For instance, referencing a particular species that has benefited from conservation efforts or discussing the economic impact of biodiversity loss could provide a stronger foundation for the arguments made.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay remains largely focused on the topic, discussing both views and providing a personal opinion. However, there are moments where the phrasing could be more precise, such as "to bring direct benefits to humans to guarantee a decent life," which may detract from the broader discussion of conservation.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, ensure that all statements directly relate to the prompt. Avoid vague phrases and instead articulate how the protection of species ties back to the core argument about conservation and human benefit. This will help keep the discussion tightly aligned with the essay prompt.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the topic and presents a well-structured argument. By incorporating more specific examples and refining transitions, the essay could achieve an even higher level of clarity and depth.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 8

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear structure, beginning with an introduction that outlines the topic and the writer’s intention to discuss both views before giving a personal opinion. The body paragraphs are well-organized, with the first paragraph addressing the arguments for protecting all endangered species and the second focusing on the rationale for prioritizing useful animals. This logical progression helps the reader follow the argument easily. However, the transition between the discussion of both views and the conclusion could be smoother, as the shift feels slightly abrupt.
- How to improve: To enhance logical flow, consider using transitional phrases at the beginning of the conclusion to signal the shift from discussion to personal opinion. For example, phrases like "In conclusion," or "Ultimately," can help guide the reader more effectively.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively uses paragraphs to separate different ideas, which contributes to clarity. Each paragraph has a clear main idea, and supporting details are provided. However, the second body paragraph could benefit from clearer topic sentences that explicitly state the main argument of that paragraph. This would reinforce the focus of each paragraph and enhance readability.
- How to improve: Start each body paragraph with a strong topic sentence that encapsulates the main idea. For instance, the second paragraph could begin with, "Proponents of prioritizing the protection of useful animals argue that…" This would provide a clear framework for the reader.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a good use of cohesive devices, such as "On the one hand," "On the other hand," and "For the long-run development." These phrases effectively signal contrasting viewpoints and help maintain coherence. However, there are instances where the use of cohesive devices could be more varied. For example, the phrase "Another explanation is" could be replaced with alternatives like "Additionally," or "Moreover," to create more variety in the transitions.
- How to improve: To diversify cohesive devices, practice incorporating a wider range of linking words and phrases. For instance, use "Furthermore," "In addition," or "Conversely," to introduce new ideas or contrast points. This will enhance the overall flow and sophistication of the writing.

Overall, the essay demonstrates strong coherence and cohesion, with a clear structure and logical organization. By refining transitions, enhancing topic sentences, and diversifying cohesive devices, the essay could achieve an even higher level of clarity and sophistication.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score for Lexical Resource: 6

Use a Wide Range of Vocabulary:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a reasonable range of vocabulary, with terms like "safeguard," "endangered species," and "ecosystem." However, the vocabulary used is somewhat repetitive, particularly in phrases like "animals beneficial to humans" and "protecting animals." This limits the overall lexical variety and richness of the essay.
- How to improve: To enhance vocabulary range, the writer could incorporate synonyms or related terms. For instance, instead of repeatedly using "beneficial," alternatives like "advantageous," "valuable," or "useful" could be employed. Additionally, using more varied phrases to describe the roles of animals in ecosystems could enrich the essay.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: While the essay generally uses vocabulary appropriately, there are instances of imprecise usage. For example, the phrase "the disappearance of one can break the delicate balance of the ecosystem" could be clearer. The term "break" might be better replaced with "disrupt" to convey the idea more accurately.
- How to improve: To improve precision, the writer should focus on selecting words that convey the intended meaning more clearly. For instance, instead of "the limitations of available budgets," using "the constraints of funding" could provide a more precise description. Engaging with a thesaurus or vocabulary-building exercises could help in this regard.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains a few spelling errors, such as "pressevation" instead of "preservation" and "kinds" instead of "kind." These mistakes detract from the overall professionalism of the writing and could lead to misunderstandings.
- How to improve: To enhance spelling accuracy, the writer should proofread the essay carefully, ideally after a break to approach it with fresh eyes. Utilizing spell-check tools and practicing common spelling rules can also be beneficial. Additionally, keeping a list of commonly misspelled words and reviewing them regularly may help improve overall spelling proficiency.

By addressing these areas—expanding vocabulary range, improving precision in word choice, and enhancing spelling accuracy—the writer can work towards achieving a higher band score in the Lexical Resource criteria of the IELTS Task 2 essay.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 7

Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a good variety of sentence structures, including complex sentences such as, "Advocates believe that each species has a role to play in the nature and the disappearance of one can break the delicate balance of the ecosystem." This showcases an understanding of how to combine ideas effectively. However, there are instances of repetitive structures, particularly in the way arguments are introduced. For example, "On the one hand" and "On the other hand" are used effectively, but the subsequent sentences often follow a similar pattern, which can make the writing feel formulaic.
- How to improve: To enhance the variety of sentence structures, consider incorporating more varied introductory phrases for arguments, such as "In contrast," "Conversely," or "Another perspective is that…" Additionally, using a mix of shorter and longer sentences can create a more engaging rhythm. Experimenting with different ways to express similar ideas can also help avoid redundancy.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally maintains a good level of grammatical accuracy, with only a few errors that detract from clarity. For instance, the phrase "emphasize on two compelling reasons" should be corrected to "emphasize two compelling reasons," as "emphasize" does not require "on." Additionally, there are minor punctuation issues, such as the lack of a comma after "thoughts" in the first sentence. The use of apostrophes in "humans’ development" is correct, but the phrase could be clearer if rewritten as "human development."
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, it is essential to proofread the essay carefully, focusing on common errors such as preposition usage and punctuation. Familiarizing yourself with the rules governing the use of commas, especially in complex sentences, can also enhance clarity. Practicing sentence restructuring can help identify and correct awkward phrasing before finalizing the essay.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a solid command of grammatical range and accuracy, focusing on diversifying sentence structures and refining grammatical precision will help elevate the score further.

Bài sửa mẫu

A contentious issue currently concerns whether humans should protect all endangered species on the planet or only prioritize those that are beneficial to us. This essay will first closely examine both views before presenting my final thoughts.

On the one hand, there are strong rationales for efforts to safeguard all animals facing extinction. Advocates believe that each species plays a crucial role in nature, and the extinction of one can disrupt the delicate balance of the ecosystem, causing irreversible consequences that could negatively affect human development. Additionally, many species may possess values beyond their current utility to humans. In fact, numerous animals could hold untapped potential for medicine or food.

On the other hand, proponents of prioritizing the protection of animals beneficial to our kind emphasize two compelling reasons. First, they argue that extinction and survival struggles are part of the natural evolutionary process, and humans can do little to alter this course. Another explanation is the limitations of available budgets and resources of governments and conservation organizations worldwide. It is consequently more sensible to allocate these limited resources only to protecting animals that provide direct benefits to humans, thereby ensuring a decent life.

Upon weighing both views, I believe that in the short term, it is essential to protect species that are useful to us first, as this will bring direct benefits to humans. However, for the long-term development of humanity, governments and conservation groups should strive to establish and implement initiatives that appropriately allocate funds and other resources to conserve all endangered species. The combination of short-term and long-term conservation plans could facilitate the coexistence of humans and animals in the coming centuries.