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

TOEFL, IELTS, Personal Statement and CV Proofreading Services. IELTS Writing Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so protecting them is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

  • Lewy
    University: Wuhan University
    Nationality: Chinese
    May 13, 2020 at 3:47 pm

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

    The protection of wild animals has a controversial issue since natural resources cannot always satisfy human beings. While funding and investing animal protection may not be more rewarding and lucrative than directly helping human, I reckon that protecting wildlife is definitely not a waste of resources.

    In the short run, it is more attractive to invest public services than to reserve wild animals. In fact, there are still masses of poor and homeless people who are suffering poverty and famine in the world, and it is not reasonable to leave them behind while we devote ourselves to the protection of animals. Since the fact that giving animals rights that are not different from those of men is impossible, spending money, time, and even natural resource that are not abundant nowadays can be said to be a form of wastage. For example building a reserve is time-consuming and land-demanding, people who live in certain countries where wonderlands of flora and fauna can be found still are thirsty for food and water. Before a welfare mechanism that benefits masses all around the world, setting aside precious resources to protect animals is a waste.

    In the long run, I argue that protecting creatures apart from human is what we should do now and can bring far more benefits than we thought. Firstly, protecting wildlife does good to providing food. For example, people can live no longer than one year without bees because bees help plants to pollinate, indirectly yielding grains and crops. Secondly, wild animals are part of ecosystem that provides all creatures with an essential environment to survive. Finally, animals, like us, possess rights to live and use resources on the planet for it is impossible to expel them from home and boycott natural resources.

    In summarise, I do not reckon that protecting animals is wasteful while it is not worthy when compared to helping people in plight.

    Administrator
    University: University of Wisconsin
    May 14, 2020 at 2:31 pm

    Score: ungraded

    Issues:

    1. About 70% of the sentences exceed 20 words. Shorten/split them.
    2. About 15% of the sentences are passive. Convert some of them into their active counterparts.

    I will send you screenshots to illustrate specific problems/errors.

    Lewy
    University: Wuhan University
    Nationality: Chinese
    May 14, 2020 at 3:26 pm

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

    The protection of wild animals has been a controversial issue since natural resources cannot always meet humans’ needs. While I disagree with the idea that investing in the protection of animals is a waste of resources, I reckon that it is less rewarding to help animals than people.

    On the one hand, it is more attractive to invest in public services than to reserve wild animals. There are still masses of poor and homeless people who are suffering poverty and famine, and it is not reasonable to leave them behind, while we devote ourselves to the protection of animals. Because giving animals rights that are not different from those of men is impossible, spending resources that are not abundant nowadays is a form of wastage. For example, building a reserve is time-consuming and land-demanding, while people who live in areas with pleasant habitats of animals still are thirsty for food and water. Before a welfare mechanism that benefits worldwide population, setting aside precious resources to protect animals is a waste.

    On the other hand, I argue that protecting creatures apart from humans is what we should do now and can bring far more benefits than we thought. Firstly, protecting wildlife contributes to providing food. For example, people can live no longer than one year without bees because bees help plants to pollinate, indirectly yielding grains and crops. Secondly, wild animals are part of the nature that provides all creatures with an essential environment to survive. Finally, animals, like us, possess the right to live and to use resources on the planet because it is impossible to expel them from home and boycott natural resources.

    In conclusion, I do not reckon that protecting animals is wasteful while it is not worthwhile when compared to helping people in plight.

     

    Administrator
    University: University of Wisconsin
    May 14, 2020 at 4:33 pm

    Score: ungraded

    Issues:

    1. About 50% of the sentences exceed 20 words. Shorten/split them.

    I will send you screenshots to illustrate specific problems/errors.

    Lewy
    University: Wuhan University
    Nationality: Chinese
    May 17, 2020 at 12:53 pm

    The protection of wild animals has been a controversial issue since natural resources cannot always meet humans’ needs. While I disagree that investing in the protection of animals is a waste of resources, I reckon that it is less rewarding to help animals than people.

    On the one hand, investing public services is more attractive than helping animals. Protecting wild animals wastes resources that otherwise can be used for those suffering from poverty and famine. Spending resources that are not abundant today on the protection of animals is a form of waste because they cannot have similar position as human. For example, people are still thirsty for food and water, while their lands are used for building a resource-consuming reserve. Before a welfare mechanism that benefits worldwide population is settled, setting aside precious resources to protect animals is a waste.

    On the other hand, I argue that protecting animals is what we should do now and can bring far more benefits than we thought. Firstly, protecting wildlife contributes to providing food. For example, people can live no longer than one year without bees that help plants to pollinate, indirectly yielding crops. Secondly, wild animals are part of the nature that provides all with a living environment. Finally, animals possess the right to live and to use resources on the planet because we cannot expel them from home and boycott natural resources.

    In conclusion, I do not reckon that protecting animals is wasteful while it is not worthwhile when compared to helping people in plight.

    Administrator
    University: University of Wisconsin
    May 19, 2020 at 1:00 am

    Score: 54.8

    Issues:

    1. About 40% of the sentences exceed 20 words. Shorten/split them.
    2. About 30% of the sentences are passive. Convert some of them into their active counterparts.

    I will send you screenshots to illustrate specific problems/errors.

    Lewy
    University: Wuhan University
    Nationality: Chinese
    May 19, 2020 at 1:36 am

    The protection of wild animals has been a controversial issue as natural resources cannot always meet humans’ needs. While I disagree that investing in the protection of animals is a waste of resources, I reckon that it is less rewarding to help animals than people.

    On the one hand, investing in public services is more attractive than helping animals. Protecting wildlife wastes resources that otherwise can be used for those suffering from poverty and famine. Spending insufficient resources today on the protection of animals is a form of waste. For example, people are still thirsty for food and water, while their lands are used for building a resource-consuming reserve. Before people can build a welfare mechanism that benefits the world’s population, setting aside precious resources to protect animals is a waste.

    On the other hand, I argue that protecting animals is what we should do now and can bring far more benefits than we thought. Firstly, protecting wildlife contributes to providing food. For example, people can live no longer than one year without bees that help plants to pollinate, indirectly yielding crops. Secondly, wild animals are part of the nature that provides all with a living environment. Finally, animals have the right to live and to use resources on the planet. We cannot expel them from home and boycott natural resources just for our own desires.

    In conclusion, I do not reckon that protecting animals is wasteful, while it is not worthwhile when compared to helping people in plight.

    Administrator
    University: University of Wisconsin
    May 23, 2020 at 2:05 am

    Invalid [ You need to complete the revision of one essay prior to submitting the 2nd one.]