Strategy
-----------------------
Argument essay
Scope - Wild animals, risk to natural habitats, protect wildlife,
Disagree
1. Importance of wildlife to maintain natural balance
2. Benefit of creating resource to protect wildlife
-----------------------
These days the wild life is at greater risk of extinction and it is predicated that this may disappear in 21st century. It has been disagreed that preserving wild animal is waste of resources. This will be proven by understanding the importance of Mother Nature life cycle and benefit of building safe homes for wild animals.
Wild life is one of the important and critical factors to maintain the balance in mother’s natural life cycle. For example, loss of wild animals will cause imbalance of food, recreational activities. This will in turn have severe consequence on nonnative species and it can disrupt the entire ecosystem. It is therefore important to preserve wild life to avoid natural consequence and investment in such activites will not be a waste of resource.
On other hand building safe home for wild animals will benefit in many folds. For example investment in zoo will benefit to government, and it will attract more visitors to spend their time. Looking at the benefit, it will be encouraged to have more safe homes for nonnative species. This is understood that it is not a waste of resources to protect wild animals.
Following the analyzation of importance of keeping natural balance and benefit of encouraging new homes for wild animals, it is clear that protecting animals will not be a waste of resources. Thus the argument that protecting wild animals is waste of resources cannot be supported. Further it is expected that there will be more motivations to protect wild life around the world.
------
It took more than 4 hours for me to prepare it. Could you please provide improvement/suggestion to make it better..
Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so protectin
-
ashok4ielts
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 3:14 pm
-
ashok4ielts
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 3:14 pm
Re: Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so prote
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?
Re: Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so prote
Take this with a grain of salt, i'm also studying for the exam. I'll mark those that i feel somewhat incorrect.
"These days the wild life is at greater risk of extinction and it is predicated that this may disappear in 21st century. It has been (is) disagreed that preserving wild animal is waste of resources. This will be proven by understanding the importance of Mother Nature life cycle and benefit of building safe homes for wild animals.
Wild life is one of the important and critical factors to maintain the balance in mother’s (you are refering to mother nature but you need to add something else to it) natural life cycle. For example, loss of wild animals will cause imbalance of food and recreational activities. This will in turn have severe consequence on nonnative species and it can disrupt the entire ecosystem. It is therefore important to preserve wild life to avoid natural consequence (unbalances). and investment It is thought that investing in such activites will not be a waste of resources.
On other hand building safe homes for wild animals will benefit in many folds. For example investment in zoo will benefit to government, and it will attract more visitors to spend their time. Looking at the benefit, it will be encouraged to have more safe homes for nonnative species. This is understood that it is not a waste of resources to protect wild animals.
Following the analyzation of importance of keeping natural balance and benefit of encouraging new homes for wild animals, it is clear that protecting animals will not be a waste of resources. Thus, the argument that protecting wild animals is waste of resources cannot be supported. Further it is expected that there will be more motivations to protect wild life around the world."
The conclusion is a bit confusing. You should rephrase it for better understanding.
For instance: Concluding, keeping natural balance of wild life is extremely important for the global equilibrium. Investing in providing artificial homes for each species in jeopardy is clearly not a waste of resources...
"These days the wild life is at greater risk of extinction and it is predicated that this may disappear in 21st century. It has been (is) disagreed that preserving wild animal is waste of resources. This will be proven by understanding the importance of Mother Nature life cycle and benefit of building safe homes for wild animals.
Wild life is one of the important and critical factors to maintain the balance in mother’s (you are refering to mother nature but you need to add something else to it) natural life cycle. For example, loss of wild animals will cause imbalance of food and recreational activities. This will in turn have severe consequence on nonnative species and it can disrupt the entire ecosystem. It is therefore important to preserve wild life to avoid natural consequence (unbalances). and investment It is thought that investing in such activites will not be a waste of resources.
On other hand building safe homes for wild animals will benefit in many folds. For example investment in zoo will benefit to government, and it will attract more visitors to spend their time. Looking at the benefit, it will be encouraged to have more safe homes for nonnative species. This is understood that it is not a waste of resources to protect wild animals.
Following the analyzation of importance of keeping natural balance and benefit of encouraging new homes for wild animals, it is clear that protecting animals will not be a waste of resources. Thus, the argument that protecting wild animals is waste of resources cannot be supported. Further it is expected that there will be more motivations to protect wild life around the world."
The conclusion is a bit confusing. You should rephrase it for better understanding.
For instance: Concluding, keeping natural balance of wild life is extremely important for the global equilibrium. Investing in providing artificial homes for each species in jeopardy is clearly not a waste of resources...
-
ashok4ielts
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 3:14 pm
Re: Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so prote
Thanks a lot Axiom. This is very helpful for me.
Re: Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so prote
These days the wild life is at greater risk of extinction and it is predicated that this may disappear in 21st century. It has been disagreed that preserving wild animal is waste of resources.=>you should use other words such as it is unnecessary and you should confirm that " I disagree with this statement" because they want to know your opinion. This will be proven by understanding the importance of Mother Nature life cycle and benefit of building safe homes for wild animals. The best way for introduction of opinion essay that you paraphrase the question and then you say you agree or disagree.
Wild life is one of the important and critical factors to maintain the balance in mother’s natural life cycle. For example, loss of wild animals will cause imbalance of food, recreational activities=> I think it is not supportive example, the decrease in number of birds that can lead to the locusts, because birds are natural enemies of locusts. This will in turn have severe consequence on nonnative species and it can disrupt the entire ecosystem. It is therefore important to preserve wild life to avoid natural consequence and investment in such activites will not be a waste of resource.
On other hand building safe home for wild animals will benefit in many folds. For example investment in zoo will benefit to government, and it will attract more visitors to spend their time. Looking at the benefit, it will be encouraged to have more safe homes for nonnative species. This is understood that it is not a waste of resources to protect wild animals.
Following the analyzation of importance of keeping natural balance and benefit of encouraging new homes for wild animals, it is clear that protecting animals will not be a waste of resources. Thus the argument that protecting wild animals is waste of resources cannot be supported. Further it is expected that there will be more motivations to protect wild life around the world. I use this sentence for all opinion essay conclusion "For the reasons mentioned above, I believe that...." You don't need to write too long in the conclusion, one sentence enough. It is only my opinion, hope it useful.
Wild life is one of the important and critical factors to maintain the balance in mother’s natural life cycle. For example, loss of wild animals will cause imbalance of food, recreational activities=> I think it is not supportive example, the decrease in number of birds that can lead to the locusts, because birds are natural enemies of locusts. This will in turn have severe consequence on nonnative species and it can disrupt the entire ecosystem. It is therefore important to preserve wild life to avoid natural consequence and investment in such activites will not be a waste of resource.
On other hand building safe home for wild animals will benefit in many folds. For example investment in zoo will benefit to government, and it will attract more visitors to spend their time. Looking at the benefit, it will be encouraged to have more safe homes for nonnative species. This is understood that it is not a waste of resources to protect wild animals.
Following the analyzation of importance of keeping natural balance and benefit of encouraging new homes for wild animals, it is clear that protecting animals will not be a waste of resources. Thus the argument that protecting wild animals is waste of resources cannot be supported. Further it is expected that there will be more motivations to protect wild life around the world. I use this sentence for all opinion essay conclusion "For the reasons mentioned above, I believe that...." You don't need to write too long in the conclusion, one sentence enough. It is only my opinion, hope it useful.
-
ashok4ielts
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 3:14 pm
Re: Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so prote
Thanks !! I appreciate your remaks and sure I'll try to take care.
-
tina sharma
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 5:26 am
please frns say me wt band will i grant?my exam is on 13 dec
Some people feel that young people face more pressure today than the equivalent age groups did in previous generations. Others think they have a much easier life than their parents did. What is your opinion? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Some centuries ago, people used to have a major concern on acquiring an enormous amount of food for their survival. Nevertheless, this issue has been solved in 21st century, and individuals have a heap of aims to grab. Certain people have concluded that present generation is much more lucky enough to experiences an easy life in comparision to the residents a decade ago. However, In my opinion, citizenries are facing more harsh condition in present world than people in primitive years.
Certainly, although nowadays, the technologies have changed the lifestyles of people, these are equally intensifying a probability of horrid criminal environment. It means, it is fairly surging the rate of more crimes and less trust which eventually eradicating the level of a safety in a society or either overall in the whole world. Does such situation makes a life easier? I think probably not, it even upgrades a sense of violence, quarrel and no identity of peace. Also, due to an advancement in medical science, citizenries are fortunate to live a more lives. It is to say that, more elderly population lead to a lack of food supply equally in every corner of the world. Another, people, nowadays, have to pay a thick money to consume their basic needs. Thus, today's life for young people is much more perilous and complicated.
Furthermore, although young generations are far moe educated, the package of tension is underlying factor which frustruated them massively. Moreover, the chancces to grant an employment is improbable for people, even they are well-qualified and graduated from a famous university. To be more specific, individuals in past, who completed their 10th standard used to get more priorities, and also an opportunity to be a part of high post in a job. However, it is quite sophisticated in today's generation. For instance, people who have professional belongings are only favourable in 21st century. Thence, a life of young people is more unadorned in present days.
In conclusion, Sompe people have been stated that life is better in current than those in past. But, I hold the opposite opinion, as it is more captious to survive in the recent world. I strongly recommend that government must be deemed on such situation and provide job facilities to young leaders. Also citizenries must develop a feeling of comradery, which will makes a life more safe and easy.
Some centuries ago, people used to have a major concern on acquiring an enormous amount of food for their survival. Nevertheless, this issue has been solved in 21st century, and individuals have a heap of aims to grab. Certain people have concluded that present generation is much more lucky enough to experiences an easy life in comparision to the residents a decade ago. However, In my opinion, citizenries are facing more harsh condition in present world than people in primitive years.
Certainly, although nowadays, the technologies have changed the lifestyles of people, these are equally intensifying a probability of horrid criminal environment. It means, it is fairly surging the rate of more crimes and less trust which eventually eradicating the level of a safety in a society or either overall in the whole world. Does such situation makes a life easier? I think probably not, it even upgrades a sense of violence, quarrel and no identity of peace. Also, due to an advancement in medical science, citizenries are fortunate to live a more lives. It is to say that, more elderly population lead to a lack of food supply equally in every corner of the world. Another, people, nowadays, have to pay a thick money to consume their basic needs. Thus, today's life for young people is much more perilous and complicated.
Furthermore, although young generations are far moe educated, the package of tension is underlying factor which frustruated them massively. Moreover, the chancces to grant an employment is improbable for people, even they are well-qualified and graduated from a famous university. To be more specific, individuals in past, who completed their 10th standard used to get more priorities, and also an opportunity to be a part of high post in a job. However, it is quite sophisticated in today's generation. For instance, people who have professional belongings are only favourable in 21st century. Thence, a life of young people is more unadorned in present days.
In conclusion, Sompe people have been stated that life is better in current than those in past. But, I hold the opposite opinion, as it is more captious to survive in the recent world. I strongly recommend that government must be deemed on such situation and provide job facilities to young leaders. Also citizenries must develop a feeling of comradery, which will makes a life more safe and easy.