The environmentalists say that human activities have damaged the earth's environment, while others claim that human activities have made the earth a better place to live. Which side do you support? Support your point of view with details.
A.I. Score
Each colour is one skill. Tap a colour to hide it. Tap it again to show it.
Debate persists over whether human activities have improved the planet or degraded the earth, and I support the environmentalist view that human actions have harmed the earth's environment more than they have enhanced it.
Firstly, the strongest evidence of harm is the large-scale environmental damage driven by industrial activity and the excessive consumption of people across the world. Moreover, deforestation, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions disrupt nature, reduce biodiversity, and intensify the climate change that reshapes the whole planet. For example, expanding cities and intensive farming replace natural habitats, and these human activities cause soil depletion and species loss that undermine food security everywhere on earth. In addition, when people pollute the local environment through careless actions, they threaten the very sustenance that human life on this planet depends upon.
However, supporters of the opposing view argue that human ingenuity has improved sanitation, medicine, and infrastructure, making the world safer for people. Admittedly, these activities have delivered real comfort, yet the gains are uneven and often achieved by shifting environmental costs to another place. Nevertheless, cleaner water or transport loses value when air quality declines, heatwaves increase, and communities face flooding, showing how fragile human progress on earth remains. Furthermore, a responsible approach would preserve both the culture and the environment of each place rather than let human actions pollute nature unchecked. Consequently, the scale and persistence of environmental deterioration indicate that human activities have made the earth less resilient for future people. Therefore, although human comfort has grown, the environmentalist warning about our damaged planet deserves serious attention from every nation on earth.
In conclusion, human activities have strained the natural systems that sustain life, so a better world depends on repairing the environment rather than continuing harmful actions.
- Fully addresses the prompt in depth, showing full command of the argument by reformulating the issue in the writer's own words and expanding important points with specificity.
- The argument is supported convincingly with subsidiary points and relevant examples throughout the response.
- Has an effective logical structure, flows smoothly, and can be followed with ease.
- The argument is clear and cohesive and developed systematically at length; a well-developed introduction and conclusion are present, and ideas are organised cohesively into clear, logically sequenced paragraphs.
- Uses a variety of connective devices effectively and consistently to convey relationships between ideas.
- A variety of expressions and vocabulary are used appropriately to formulate ideas with ease and precision throughout the response.
- No signs of limitations restricting what can be communicated.
- Errors in language use, if present, are rare and minor, and meaning is completely clear.
- Shows consistent grammatical control of complex language. Errors are rare and difficult to spot.
- Good command of a broad lexical repertoire, idiomatic expressions and collocations.
- Correct spelling.
- Length is within the required 200 to 300 words.