Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, and the protection is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

People have different views on the necessity of preserving wild animals in the modern days. While some people argue that guarding wild animals is a meaningless depletion of resources, I lean toward the opposite viewpoint. This essay will substantiate my opinion.

Firstly, the most radical explanation of why people should provide wild animals with protection is that their mere existence serves to conserve balance to the ecosystem which is vital to humans’ survival. In specific, wild beasts feed on insects or animals that possess a lower rank in the food chain. This, in turn, is not only to satisfy their cravings for food but also to control other animals’ unchecked population, restoring equity for the biodiversity. A telling example is snakes’ consuming rats in cornfields. If snakes become extinct, the population of rats will rocket in view of their soaring fertility rate, posing great danger to humans’ ration storage.

Secondly, since some wild animals still hold tremendous scientific values, especially in pharmaceutical fields, it is worthwhile to offer them protection. To commence with, body parts of dead wild beasts or insects possess a number of medicinal properties that can act in furtherance of medical discoveries and cure ailments. For example, tiger bones and bear bile have proved effective at reducing kidney pain and sexual dysfunction; therefore, that governments allocate resources to protect wild animals is advisable.

Some people may argue that wild animal’s protection is a waste of resources as they are of little importance, evidenced by the fact that deaths of some species have no direct consequence on humans’ economy and society .This is true, to some extent, but it should be born in mind that their survival plays a crucial role in the natural world, which closely connects with the two aforementioned aspects. For example, large wild grass-eaters can reduce the amount of grass that can fuel fires through grazing, which is highly cost-saving for the wood industry by reducing risks of forest fires.

In conclusion, although some people render the protection of wild species useless, I opine that there is a pressing need to preserve their existence with respect to scientific developments and balance in the ecosystem.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"leaning toward" -> "inclining towards"
Explanation: The phrase "leaning toward" is a bit informal for an academic essay. Replacing it with "inclining towards" maintains the same meaning while using a more formal and sophisticated expression.
"radical explanation" -> "primary rationale"
Explanation: "Radical explanation" may imply an extreme or unconventional idea. Using "primary rationale" presents the reasoning in a more objective and academic manner.
"cravings for food" -> "appetite for food"
Explanation: "Cravings for food" has a colloquial tone. Replacing it with "appetite for food" maintains the same meaning in a more formal manner.
"checked population" -> "controlled population"
Explanation: "Checked population" might be unclear in this context. "Controlled population" better communicates the idea of managing the numbers of animals.
"rocket" -> "rapidly increase"
Explanation: "Rocket" is a bit informal. "Rapidly increase" provides a more formal and precise description of the situation.
"ration storage" -> "food reserves"
Explanation: "Ration storage" is slightly informal. "Food reserves" is a more formal term for the stored food supply.
"To commence with" -> "To begin with"
Explanation: "To commence with" is less commonly used in formal writing. "To begin with" is a more standard expression in academic contexts.
"in furtherance of" -> "for"
Explanation: "In furtherance of" can sound overly formal. Using "for" maintains the same meaning while sounding more natural.
"advisable" -> "prudent"
Explanation: While "advisable" is acceptable, "prudent" adds a more sophisticated and formal tone to the sentence.
"waste of resources" -> "misallocation of resources"
Explanation: "Waste of resources" might be considered slightly informal. "Misallocation of resources" better conveys the idea of resources not being used effectively.
"evidenced by the fact that" -> "as evidenced by"
Explanation: Simplifying the phrase to "as evidenced by" maintains the same meaning while making the sentence more concise and formal.
"born in mind" -> "borne in mind"
Explanation: The correct phrase is "borne in mind," which means to be kept in mind or considered.
"opine" -> "believe"
Explanation: While "opine" is correct, "believe" is a more straightforward and commonly used term in academic writing.

By making these alterations, the language in the essay becomes more academically appropriate while retaining its original meaning and flow.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Quoted text: "People have different views on the necessity of preserving wild animals in the modern days. While some people argue that guarding wild animals is a meaningless depletion of resources, I lean toward the opposite viewpoint. This essay will substantiate my opinion."
- Explanation and Suggestions for Improvement: The introduction adequately presents the writer’s position on the topic. However, it lacks a concise summary of the main points to be discussed, affecting overall clarity. To enhance coherence, consider adding a sentence that outlines the key arguments you will elaborate on in the body paragraphs.
- Improved example: "People hold diverse opinions regarding the preservation of wild animals today. While some contend that protecting them is a wasteful use of resources, I strongly advocate for the importance of safeguarding these species. In the subsequent paragraphs, I will elucidate on the ecological balance and scientific significance as key reasons supporting my stance."
Quoted text: "Firstly, the most radical explanation of why people should provide wild animals with protection is that their mere existence serves to conserve balance to the ecosystem which is vital to humans’ survival."
- Explanation and Suggestions for Improvement: The argument is well-presented, emphasizing the ecological balance maintained by wild animals. However, the use of the term "radical explanation" might be seen as slightly exaggerated. To refine the language, consider using a more neutral term such as "fundamental" or "integral" to maintain a balanced tone.
- Improved example: "Firstly, a fundamental reason supporting the protection of wild animals is their role in maintaining balance within the ecosystem, a factor crucial to human survival."
Quoted text: "Secondly, since some wild animals still hold tremendous scientific values, especially in pharmaceutical fields, it is worthwhile to offer them protection."
- Explanation and Suggestions for Improvement: The argument is sound, emphasizing the scientific value of wild animals. However, it lacks specific examples to strengthen the point. To enhance the persuasiveness, provide concrete instances of how certain species have contributed to pharmaceutical advancements.
- Improved example: "Secondly, the considerable scientific value of certain wild animals, particularly in pharmaceutical research, underscores the importance of their protection. For instance, compounds derived from specific animal species have played a pivotal role in the development of life-saving medicines, highlighting the need for conservation efforts."
Quoted text: "Some people may argue that wild animal’s protection is a waste of resources as they are of little importance, evidenced by the fact that deaths of some species have no direct consequence on humans’ economy and society."
- Explanation and Suggestions for Improvement: The counterargument is acknowledged, but the response lacks a clear refutation or rebuttal. Strengthen your response by addressing the potential flaws in the opposing view, emphasizing the broader ecological and long-term societal implications.
- Improved example: "While some contend that protecting wild animals is a wasteful use of resources, based on the limited impact of specific species on immediate human economy and society, it is crucial to recognize the interconnectedness of ecosystems. The long-term consequences of the decline or extinction of certain species can have cascading effects on biodiversity, which in turn influences human well-being."

Overall, the essay presents a clear position, but improvements in providing a concise overview in the introduction, refining language for neutrality, incorporating specific examples, and addressing opposing views more comprehensively would enhance the Task Response.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0
Explanation: The essay logically organizes information and ideas, demonstrating a clear progression throughout. The use of cohesive devices is varied and appropriate, contributing to the overall coherence. Each paragraph presents a clear central topic, enhancing the overall cohesion. However, there is some minor underuse and overuse of cohesive devices. Paragraphing is generally logical, but there could be slight improvements.
How to improve: Pay attention to the balance of cohesive devices, ensuring they are used consistently throughout the essay. Fine-tune paragraphing for even greater logical flow and cohesion.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 8

Band Score: 8.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates a commendable use of vocabulary, contributing to a precise and sophisticated presentation of ideas. The writer exhibits a wide range of vocabulary with a good control of lexical features, and any errors are minor "slips" that do not hinder comprehension. The essay employs a variety of words and expressions relevant to the topic, reflecting a nuanced understanding of the subject matter.

The candidate skillfully uses uncommon lexical items and shows flexibility in conveying precise meanings. There is evidence of an awareness of style and collocation, contributing to the overall fluency of the essay. While there are occasional inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, they are infrequent and do not significantly impact the overall quality of the language.

Additionally, the essay avoids rare errors in spelling and word formation, maintaining a high level of lexical accuracy. The vocabulary chosen enhances the clarity and depth of the argument, showcasing the candidate’s ability to express complex ideas effectively.

How to improve:
To further improve, the candidate could strive for even greater variety in lexical choices, paying careful attention to nuances and shades of meaning. Additionally, a more consistent application of advanced vocabulary throughout the essay would enhance overall lexical cohesion. Proofreading for minor slips and refining the accuracy of word choice and collocation could elevate the essay to a more consistent Band 9 level.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates a commendable command of grammatical structures, utilizing a variety of complex sentence forms throughout the response. There is evidence of a good range of vocabulary and an attempt to convey ideas with precision. The majority of sentences are error-free, contributing to effective communication. However, some minor errors and awkward phrasing are present, and there are occasional lapses in sentence clarity.

How to improve:
To elevate the score to Band 8, the writer should aim for even greater precision and fluency. Careful proofreading is essential to eliminate occasional errors and awkward phrasing, enhancing overall coherence. Additionally, focusing on refining sentence clarity will further strengthen the essay’s grammatical range and accuracy. Consider rephrasing sentences that may cause a slight stumble for the reader.

Bài sửa mẫu

Opinions vary regarding the relevance of safeguarding wild animals in contemporary times. While some contend that preserving these creatures is an unwarranted drain on resources, I am inclined towards the opposing perspective. This essay will elaborate on my standpoint.

To begin with, a primary rationale for providing protection to wild animals is the vital role they play in maintaining balance within the ecosystem, a balance crucial for human survival. Specifically, wild animals feed on insects or animals lower in the food chain, not solely to satisfy their appetite for food but also to control the unchecked population of other species, thus reinstating equilibrium to biodiversity. A concrete illustration is the consumption of rats in cornfields by snakes. Should snakes face extinction, the rat population would rapidly increase due to their high fertility rate, posing a significant threat to the food reserves of humans.

Moreover, some wild animals hold significant scientific value, especially in the field of pharmaceuticals, justifying their protection. For instance, various body parts of deceased wild animals or insects possess medicinal properties that can contribute to medical discoveries and the treatment of ailments. Tiger bones and bear bile, for example, have demonstrated efficacy in alleviating kidney pain and sexual dysfunction. Therefore, it is prudent for governments to allocate resources towards safeguarding these creatures.

While some argue that protecting wild animals is a misallocation of resources, asserting that the demise of certain species has no direct impact on the human economy and society, it should be borne in mind that their survival plays a crucial role in the natural world, closely connected to the two aforementioned aspects. Large wild grass-eaters, for instance, contribute to cost savings in the wood industry by reducing the risk of forest fires through their grazing activities.

In conclusion, despite assertions that protecting wild species is futile, I believe there is a compelling need to preserve their existence, considering their significance in scientific advancements and maintaining equilibrium in the ecosystem.