It is sometimes argued that animal extinction is a natural process which should not be intervened in by humans. I largely agree with this argument given the importance of the process and even though the disappearance of species might lead to serious harm to the ecosystem. The foremost rationale for my disapproval of human intervention lies in the crucial role of extinction in natural selection. , the selection one of the fundamental laws of nature, ensures that species incapable of acclimatizing to environmental changes are eliminated to allow for more suitable species to survive. If humans interfered with the elimination of some species, this fundamental principle as well as the normal development of the natural world would be seriously disrupted. Another I oppose the endeavour of halting animal extinction is the presence of more pressing challenges. Notably, there exist a number of perennial including environmental pollution, international conflicts and overpopulation, which might not only but also threaten the existence of Consequently, allocating resources to tackle these urgent problems takes precedence over preserving certain animal species. Nevertheless, I acknowledge the potential degradation of the ecosystem associated with the extinction of animal species. If one or more animal species are lost forever, this would disrupt the food chain as other animals would lose important sources of food. This could lead to and by extension the breakdown of the wider ecosystem, threatening both global food security and human habitats. In conclusion, I mostly endorse the opposition to human protection of animal species from extinction considering its importance in natural selection and the significance of solving more immediate problems despite the possible loss in biodiversity. That is why governments should halt all related projects and redirect their resources to more important ones.
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
13 correction notes
Overall assessment
Why this response received Band 7.0
The response presents a clear initial position, develops two reasons for limiting intervention and acknowledges an important ecological counterargument. Its main limitations are the unresolved tension between that counterargument and the recommendation, occasional imprecise phrasing, and a final call to halt all projects that is stronger than the qualified stance introduced earlier.
IELTS criteria
How each score was decided
TR Task Response
7.0The essay directly addresses the question and develops arguments about natural selection and competing priorities, while acknowledging ecological risks. Its qualified stance is clear initially, but the final call to halt all related projects is more absolute, and the serious counterargument is not fully weighed against the reasons for non-intervention.
CC Coherence and Cohesion
7.0The argument progresses clearly from natural selection to competing priorities, then a concession and conclusion. Linking expressions signal these stages, although the ecological risks in the concession are not clearly reconciled with the final recommendation to end all related projects.
LR Lexical Resource
7.0Vocabulary is flexible and largely precise, using topic-appropriate terms such as natural selection, food chain, and biodiversity, with some occasionally awkward collocations like downgrade people's living standards.
GRA Grammatical Range and Accuracy
7.0A good range of complex structures, including conditionals and relative clauses, is used with generally strong accuracy; errors are minor and rarely impede understanding.