is that humans should not intervene in the potential extinction of certain species of animals, which is considered natural. This assumption is far from convincing. On the one hand, some people might think that humans should not seek to . This is based on the belief that animal extinction is a natural phenomenon as a result of such disasters as forest fires, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, droughts, and so on. On the other hand, what I strongly believe is that it is a must to make efforts to prevent animals from dying out, especially when it comes to endangered animals including the rhino and the tiger, for two major reasons. Firstly, poaching, or illegal hunting, is a man-made problem which is on the rise around the globe, specifically in third-world countries. For a wide variety of , rhinos and tigers have been hunted to such an extent that their populations have seriously shrunk in recent years. Without aggressive global interventions, future generations would only see them in encyclopedias, . Secondly, it is human beings that are destroying animals’ natural habitats so as to do business earning as much money as possible. One of the striking examples is an increasing number of luxurious resorts coming into being are associated with this issue. If governments had no measures to tackle it, it would inevitably place all species, humans included, on the verge of extermination. In conclusion, it is definitely unreasonable to believe there should be no action taken as far as the future disappearance of certain animal species is concerned.
Sample response & feedback
Preventing Animal Extinction as a Natural Process
Question
It is a natural process for animal species to become extinct. There is no reason why people should try to prevent this from happening. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Annotated response
12 correction notes
Overall assessment
Why this response received Band 7.0
The response takes a clear, consistent position and develops it with relevant reasons and examples such as poaching and habitat destruction. Its strongest aspect is the fluent, wide-ranging language, while the main limitation is occasional awkward phrasing and slightly uneven development of the second supporting idea.
IELTS criteria
How each score was decided
TR Task Response
7.0The response clearly disagrees with the statement, presents two relevant developed reasons with examples, and reaches a consistent conclusion, though the second argument is less fully elaborated.
CC Coherence and Cohesion
6.5The opposing view and the writer’s two reasons are signposted clearly. Progression becomes less smooth when the habitat-destruction point and the resort example are separated by a line break, and some linking is mechanical.
LR Lexical Resource
7.0Vocabulary shows a useful topic-specific range, including “poaching”, “endangered animals” and “natural habitats”. Precision is less consistent in expressions such as “medicinal factors” and the sweeping prediction that all species face “extermination”.
GRA Grammatical Range and Accuracy
6.5A good range of structures is used, including conditionals, a cleft sentence, and relative clauses, but noticeable errors such as the garbled sentence about luxurious resorts reduce accuracy.