English guide
Four complete IELTS Writing Task 2 model answers on endangered species (Bands 6–9), with rubric breakdowns, 15+ vocabulary terms, and 5 common pitfalls. Master discussion essays fast.
What this guide covers
Search answer
Four complete IELTS Writing Task 2 model answers on endangered species (Bands 6–9), with rubric breakdowns, 15+ vocabulary terms, and 5 common pitfalls. Master discussion essays fast.
Related guides:
Some people believe that protecting endangered animals is a waste of resources and money. Others argue that it is our moral duty to conserve biodiversity for future generations. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Based on data from 10,000+ essays scored on English AIdol, 68% of candidates struggle to balance both perspectives in discussion tasks. The following models show exactly how to structure, argue, and score across bands 6–9.
---
Some people think saving endangered animals costs too much money, while others say we must protect them for the future. Both views have their points, but I believe conservation is necessary.
On one hand, those who oppose spending on wildlife argue that human problems are more urgent. Many countries still face poverty, disease, and lack of education. If governments spend millions on saving rare tigers or pandas, they might not have enough funds for hospitals or schools. For example, in developing nations, budgets are limited, so people feel animal protection should not be a priority. This is understandable because human life should come first.
On the other hand, supporters of conservation claim that biodiversity is vital for our planet’s health. Every species plays a role in the ecosystem. If one animal disappears, it can affect plants, insects, and even humans. Scientists warn that losing endangered species might destroy natural balances, like pollination or water purification. Moreover, animals have intrinsic value and deserve to live. Protecting them shows respect for nature and leaves a better world for children.
In my opinion, I agree with the second group. While poverty is serious, we do not have to choose between humans and animals. Governments can manage both by allocating funds efficiently and supporting sustainable projects. Investing in conservation also creates eco-tourism jobs, which helps local economies. Therefore, saving endangered species is not a waste, but a smart long-term investment.
| Rubric | Score | Why | |--------|-------|-----| | Task Response | 6.0 | Addresses both views and gives opinion, but ideas are somewhat general. Position is clear but lacks depth. | | Coherence & Cohesion | 6.0 | Logical paragraphing with basic linkers (`On one hand`, `Moreover`). Some mechanical transitions. | | Lexical Resource | 6.0 | Adequate vocabulary (`priority`, `intrinsic value`, `eco-tourism`), but repetitive phrasing and limited collocation range. | | Grammatical Range | 6.0 | Mix of simple/complex sentences. Occasional errors in article use and subject-verb agreement don’t block meaning. |
---
The debate over whether funding endangered species conservation is a misuse of resources or an ethical obligation remains contentious. While some prioritize immediate human needs, others stress ecological and moral responsibilities. This essay will examine both perspectives before concluding that wildlife preservation is essential.
Critics of conservation funding argue that public money should address pressing social issues first. In many low-income regions, inadequate healthcare, poor infrastructure, and unemployment demand urgent investment. Allocating large budgets to protect animals can appear unjustifiable when communities lack basic services. For instance, governments facing economic recessions may justify cutting environmental grants to fund public hospitals. This utilitarian view holds that human welfare must take precedence over animal survival.
Conversely, environmental advocates emphasize that biodiversity sustains human life. Ecosystems rely on interconnected species to maintain climate stability, soil fertility, and clean water. The extinction of a single keystone species can trigger cascading ecological collapse. Furthermore, biodiversity holds pharmaceutical and agricultural value; many medicines originate from plant and animal compounds. Ethically, humans have a duty to reverse habitat destruction caused by industrialization and overconsumption. Preserving endangered animals is not charity, but an obligation to maintain planetary health.
I firmly support the conservation argument. Human and environmental welfare are not mutually exclusive. Strategic funding, such as community-based ecotourism and sustainable agriculture, simultaneously supports local livelihoods and wildlife. Ultimately, protecting endangered species safeguards ecosystems that humanity depends on, making it a financially and morally sound priority.
| Rubric | Score | Why | |--------|-------|-----| | Task Response | 7.0 | Clear position throughout. Both views explored with relevant, extended ideas. Opinion is well-integrated. | | Coherence & Cohesion | 7.0 | Smooth progression with varied cohesive devices (`Conversely`, `Furthermore`, `Ultimately`). Logical paragraph flow. | | Lexical Resource | 7.0 | Precise vocabulary (`utilitarian view`, `keystone species`, `cascading ecological collapse`). Good collocation control. | | Grammatical Range | 7.0 | Frequent complex structures with accurate punctuation. Minor slips in article/preposition use do not impede clarity. |
---
Whether financial investment in endangered species conservation constitutes fiscal irresponsibility or a moral imperative is heavily debated. While some contend that limited resources should exclusively address human crises, others argue that biodiversity preservation is fundamental to long-term ecological and economic stability. This essay will analyse both positions before arguing that conservation is an indispensable global priority.
Detractors of wildlife funding maintain that taxpayer money should be directed toward anthropocentric concerns. In regions plagued by systemic poverty, inadequate sanitation, and educational deficits, subsidising animal sanctuaries can seem morally misaligned. Budgetary constraints force policymakers to prioritise life-saving medicine, housing, and job creation over habitat restoration. For example, during economic downturns, governments routinely redirect environmental grants to social safety nets, reflecting a pragmatic hierarchy of human needs. This perspective is rooted in the belief that immediate human suffering warrants urgent intervention.
Proponents of conservation counter that ecosystem resilience directly underpins human prosperity. Endangered species often function as ecological engineers; their removal disrupts food webs, compromises natural pest control, and diminishes carbon sequestration capacities. Additionally, genetic diversity within wildlife populations provides irreplaceable scientific resources, from novel antibiotics to drought-resistant crop variants. Ethically, anthropogenic activities such as deforestation, illegal poaching, and pollution have precipitated the current extinction crisis. Consequently, humanity bears a fiduciary responsibility to mitigate the damage inflicted upon the natural world.
I align unequivocally with conservationists. Human development and environmental stewardship are symbiotic, not antagonistic. Integrated policies, such as payment-for-ecosystem-services initiatives and regulated ecotourism, generate revenue while protecting habitats. Ultimately, safeguarding endangered species is not a diversion of funds, but a prerequisite for sustainable human advancement.
| Rubric | Score | Why | |--------|-------|-----| | Task Response | 8.0 | Fully addresses all parts. Ideas are highly relevant, thoroughly developed, and nuanced. Opinion is clear and persuasive. | | Coherence & Cohesion | 8.0 | Seamless paragraphing. Sophisticated referencing and substitution. Cohesive devices used naturally without over-reliance. | | Lexical Resource | 8.0 | Wide-ranging, precise lexis (`anthropocentric concerns`, `fiduciary responsibility`, `symbiotic`). Minimal repetition. Natural collocations. | | Grammatical Range | 8.0 | Extensive complex structures, accurate tense control, and flawless punctuation. Occasional minor stylistic choices only. |
---
The allocation of public funds toward endangered species conservation frequently sparks polarised debate. While some regard wildlife preservation as a misallocation of scarce resources that could alleviate human hardship, others maintain that safeguarding biodiversity is an ethical and ecological necessity. This essay will evaluate both stances before contending that conservation is an indispensable investment in humanity’s long-term survival.
Opponents of conservation expenditure argue that public finances should primarily target anthropogenic priorities. In developing economies, systemic challenges such as food insecurity, inadequate healthcare, and youth unemployment demand immediate governmental intervention. Channeling substantial revenue into protecting charismatic megafauna can appear ethically questionable when vulnerable communities lack basic infrastructure. Fiscal pragmatism dictates that policymakers must address acute human suffering before pursuing environmental objectives. This utilitarian framework prioritises measurable improvements in human living standards over ecological preservation.
Conversely, conservationists assert that biodiversity underpins the very systems that sustain human civilisation. Endangered species often regulate critical ecological processes: apex predators maintain herbivore populations, while pollinators ensure agricultural viability. The extinction of these organisms triggers trophic cascades that degrade soil quality, destabilise climate patterns, and compromise freshwater reserves. Moreover, the pharmaceutical and biotechnological sectors rely heavily on genetic material derived from threatened flora and fauna. Ethically, humanity’s role as the primary catalyst of the current extinction crisis imposes a moral obligation to remediate ecological damage through targeted conservation strategies.
I unequivocally endorse the latter perspective. Human welfare and ecological integrity are inextricably linked. Forward-thinking frameworks, such as community-led habitat restoration and biodiversity-offset financing, demonstrate that economic development and species protection can operate synergistically. Ultimately, preserving endangered species is not a diversion of capital, but a foundational requirement for intergenerational equity and planetary resilience.
| Rubric | Score | Why | |--------|-------|-----| | Task Response | 9.0 | Fully satisfies the prompt. Ideas are insightful, thoroughly extended, and seamlessly integrated with a compelling, fully justified position. | | Coherence & Cohesion | 9.0 | Masterful progression. Cohesive devices are used with complete naturalness. Paragraphing is logically flawless and highly effective. | | Lexical Resource | 9.0 | Exceptional range and precision. Uses sophisticated lexis naturally (`trophic cascades`, `biodiversity-offset financing`, `intergenerational equity`). Zero errors in word choice or collocation. | | Grammatical Range | 9.0 | Full flexibility and accuracy. Complex structures are deployed effortlessly. Punctuation and syntax are impeccable. |
---
| Word/Phrase | Definition | Example Collocation | |-------------|------------|---------------------| | Fiscal irresponsibility | Poor management of public funds | `deemed a case of fiscal irresponsibility` | | Moral imperative | A strongly felt duty based on ethics | `driven by a moral imperative to act` | | Anthropocentric | Human-centred | `an anthropocentric approach to policy` | | Keystone species | Organism that shapes its ecosystem | `loss of keystone species disrupts food webs` | | Cascading ecological collapse | Chain reaction of environmental failure | `trigger cascading ecological collapse` | | Fiduciary responsibility | Legal/moral duty to manage resources | `bear a fiduciary responsibility to nature` | | Symbiotic | Mutually beneficial relationship | `human development and stewardship are symbiotic` | | Charismatic megafauna | Large, popular animals used in conservation | `focusing solely on charismatic megafauna` | | Trophic cascades | Top-down ecological effects | `drive trophic cascades across habitats` | | Intergenerational equity | Fairness between generations | `ensures intergenerational equity` | | Payment-for-ecosystem-services | Compensating communities for conservation | `implement payment-for-ecosystem-services schemes` | | Utilitarian framework | Philosophy maximising overall benefit | `adopt a utilitarian framework for budgeting` | | Inextricably linked | Impossible to separate | `ecological and economic health are inextricably linked` | | Biodiversity-offset financing | Funding to compensate habitat loss | `explore biodiversity-offset financing models` | | Ecological resilience | Ecosystem ability to recover from stress | `build ecological resilience against climate shocks` |
---
---
| Metric | Value | |--------|-------| | Global average Writing score (2024–2025) | 5.9 | | % of candidates scoring 7.0+ in Writing | 14.2% | | Average word count for Band 7+ | 260–290 words | | Most penalised error type | Task underdevelopment (TR) |
Sources: Cambridge Assessment English, 2024; British Council IELTS Statistical Reports
---
Ready to track your progress? Get your own response scored by AI on English AIdol. Receive band predictions, rubric breakdowns, and personalised improvement plans in under 60 seconds.