English guide
Expert Band 6, 7, 8, and 9 model answers for IELTS Writing Task 2 wildlife conservation discussion prompts. Learn from top-scoring examples.
What this guide covers
Search answer
Expert Band 6, 7, 8, and 9 model answers for IELTS Writing Task 2 wildlife conservation discussion prompts. Learn from top-scoring examples.
Related guides:
Many people argue that governments should invest heavily in wildlife conservation. Others believe that limited funds should be spent on human needs instead. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Some people think governments should spend money on protecting animals, while others believe that money should be used to help humans. Both views have merits.
On one hand, protecting wildlife is important. Animals are part of our natural environment, and losing them would be a tragedy. For example, many species are endangered due to human activities. Saving them can help maintain the balance of nature. Additionally, wildlife tourism can bring money to countries, creating jobs and boosting the economy.
On the other hand, there are many human needs that require attention. In some countries, people do not have enough food, clean water, or proper healthcare. Spending money on these basic needs is more important than saving animals. For instance, in poor countries, people suffer from hunger and diseases, and the government should prioritize helping them.
In conclusion, both views are valid. However, I think governments should focus on human needs first, as they are more urgent.
The debate over whether governments should prioritize wildlife conservation or human needs is complex. Both perspectives deserve consideration.
Proponents of wildlife conservation argue that protecting endangered species is crucial for maintaining ecological balance. For example, the extinction of bees could disrupt agriculture, affecting food supplies. Moreover, wildlife tourism generates significant revenue, supporting local economies. Countries like Costa Rica have successfully combined conservation with economic growth, proving that both can coexist.
Conversely, advocates for human needs highlight the pressing issues of poverty and healthcare. In many developing nations, basic necessities such as clean water and adequate healthcare are still unavailable to a large portion of the population. For instance, in sub-Saharan Africa, millions lack access to clean water, leading to health crises. Addressing these issues should be a priority for governments.
In my opinion, while wildlife conservation is important, addressing human needs should take precedence. Governments should allocate funds to both areas but prioritize human well-being.
The question of whether governments should invest in wildlife conservation or human needs is a contentious one, with compelling arguments on both sides.
Those in favor of wildlife conservation contend that protecting endangered species is essential for maintaining biodiversity. The loss of even one species can have cascading effects on the ecosystem. For instance, the disappearance of predators can lead to an overpopulation of herbivores, disrupting the food chain. Additionally, wildlife tourism is a lucrative industry, generating billions of dollars annually and creating jobs. Countries like Kenya have successfully leveraged wildlife conservation to boost their economies.
However, proponents of human needs argue that addressing poverty and healthcare should be the top priority. In many parts of the world, people still lack access to basic necessities. For example, in India, millions live below the poverty line, struggling to afford food and healthcare. Investing in education and healthcare can lead to long-term economic growth and social stability.
In my view, while wildlife conservation is important, governments should prioritize human needs. A balanced approach, where both areas receive adequate funding, would be ideal.
The debate over whether governments should prioritize wildlife conservation or human needs is multifaceted, with compelling arguments on both sides. A nuanced approach is essential to address both concerns effectively.
Advocates for wildlife conservation emphasize the ecological importance of protecting endangered species. The loss of even one species can disrupt the delicate balance of ecosystems. For example, the extinction of bees could lead to a collapse in agriculture, affecting global food supplies. Furthermore, wildlife tourism is a significant economic driver, generating billions of dollars annually and supporting millions of jobs. Countries like Botswana have successfully integrated conservation with economic growth, demonstrating that both can coexist.
Conversely, those who prioritize human needs argue that addressing poverty and healthcare is more urgent. In many developing nations, basic necessities such as clean water and adequate healthcare are still unavailable to a large portion of the population. For instance, in sub-Saharan Africa, millions lack access to clean water, leading to health crises. Investing in education and healthcare can lead to long-term economic growth and social stability.
In my opinion, while wildlife conservation is crucial, governments should prioritize human needs. A balanced approach, where both areas receive adequate funding, would be ideal. By addressing human needs first, governments can create a stable foundation for long-term conservation efforts.
Practice makes perfect. Get your own IELTS Writing Task 2 responses scored by AI on English AIdol and receive detailed feedback to improve your score.