It is a natural process for animal specicies to become extinct (e.g dinosaurs, dodos, etc.) There is no reason why people should try to prevent this from happening. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The is a notion that the extinction of animal species is an inevatable process of the nature, and humans should not try to save those endangered species. While there is some truth to this statement, I tend to disagree.
Natural cycle of the planet changes over time and experiences different periods, such as Ice Ages or the Fall of Asteroids to the planet. These events might be a reason why we needn’t try to stop the extinction of animals because they are considered to be natural and cannot be avoided. Many different creatures that walked on the planet in the past have gone extinct due to natural causes and some new animals have replaced their place now. Humanity does not have to partake in this process as it happens naturally.
However, I believe people should take actions to stop this. Environment consists of many types of flora and fauna, both of which keep the nature as it is. If some animal species disappear, it might dusrupt many natural processes. For example, food chain may get affected badly since every single animal, regardless of their size, number or type, has its own unique place in the food chain. This, in turn, can bring about many other environmental problems.
Furthermore, it is human activity that is putting the lives of certain species at risk. Reckless attitude of people to the environment, such as deforestation or turning natural places into tourist resorts have caused a lot of habitat loss and disrupted the vegetational processes of various species. Since humans are responsible for many environemental problems, it is their moral responsibilty to try to prevent animals from dying out.
In conclusion, while the disappearance of animal species might seem natural, I argue that humanity must try to prevent this as it can have a negative effect on the nature as a whole and doing so would be morally right.
The essay is logically organized and the ideas are connected well. However, there are a few areas where the flow of ideas could be improved. The essay follows a logical structure, but transitions between paragraphs and within paragraphs could be smoother. The introduction sets up the topic well, but the connection between different points could be enhanced with more explicit linking phrases. The conclusion effectively summarizes the main points but could be more comprehensive.
Suggestions
- Use more linking words to improve the flow of ideas.
- Ensure that each paragraph has a clear main idea.
The essay uses a wide range of vocabulary and there is evidence of some less common and idiomatic language. However, there are a few instances of awkward or incorrect word choice. The essay demonstrates a good command of a wide range of vocabulary relevant to the topic, such as “inevitable,” “flora and fauna,” and “food chain.” However, there are some instances of awkward or incorrect word choice that could be revised for clarity and precision.
The essay uses a variety of complex structures. However, there are a few grammatical errors and awkward constructions. The essay uses a variety of sentence structures effectively, including complex sentences and passive constructions. However, there are some grammatical errors and awkward constructions that could be revised for clarity and accuracy.
The essay addresses the task effectively, presenting a clear position throughout. The essay addresses the prompt by discussing both sides of the argument regarding the extinction of animal species and human intervention. The writer clearly states their position, disagreeing with the idea that we should not interfere with natural extinction processes, and provides well-developed arguments to support their view. However, the essay could benefit from a more detailed exploration of the opposing viewpoint to strengthen the overall argument.
Suggestions
- Consider addressing potential counterarguments to strengthen the overall position.