Scribd
Upload
135 views1 page

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?

The document is an opinion essay that disagrees with the view that protecting wild animals is a waste of resources. It argues that wild animals have a place in the 21st century and we have no right to allow species extinction. It also claims that protecting habitats helps maintain the natural balance of life on Earth and is crucial for human survival, so the costs of conservation are outweighed by the costs of environmental damage.

Uploaded by

Mohamed Elsir
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
135 views1 page

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?

The document is an opinion essay that disagrees with the view that protecting wild animals is a waste of resources. It argues that wild animals have a place in the 21st century and we have no right to allow species extinction. It also claims that protecting habitats helps maintain the natural balance of life on Earth and is crucial for human survival, so the costs of conservation are outweighed by the costs of environmental damage.

Uploaded by

Mohamed Elsir
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Opinion Essay

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?
Some people argue that it is pointless to spend money on the protection of wild animals
because we humans have no need for them. I completely disagree with this point of
view.
In my opinion, it is absurd to argue that wild animals have no place in the 21st century. I
do not believe that planet Earth exists only for the benefit of humans, and there is
nothing special about this particular century that means that we suddenly have the right
to allow or encourage the extinction of any species. Furthermore, there is no compelling
reason why we should let animals die out. We do not need to exploit or destroy every
last square metre of land in order to feed or accommodate the worlds population. There
is plenty of room for us to exist side by side with wild animals, and this should be our
aim.
I also disagree with the idea that protecting animals is a waste of resources. It is usually
the protection of natural habitats that ensures the survival of wild animals, and most
scientists agree that these habitats are also crucial for human survival. For example,
rainforests produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide and stabilise the Earths climate. If
we destroyed these areas, the costs of managing the resulting changes to our planet
would far outweigh the costs of conservation. By protecting wild animals and their
habitats, we maintain the natural balance of all life on Earth.
In conclusion, we have no right to decide whether or not wild animals should exist, and I
believe that we should do everything we can to protect them. (269 words, band 9)
Plan:
1. Introduce the topic (rights and protection of wild animals), then answer the
question (completely disagree)
2. First reason why we disagree e.g. our duty to protect animals, their rights and
place in the world
3. Second reason why we disagree e.g. the resources we should use to protect
animals, and why this is not a waste
4. Conclusion: repeat / summarise our answer
Remember:The introduction and conclusion should be short, quick and direct. If you
want a high score, spend your time on the main body.

You might also like