Experts argue that human needs for farmland, housing and industry are more important than reserving land for endangered animals. Will you support this statement and why?
A.I. Score
Each colour is one skill. Tap a colour to hide it. Tap it again to show it.
Growing human pressure for farmland, housing and industry has led some experts to prioritise human land use over the conservation of endangered animals. While human development is essential, I do not support the claim that it outweighs reserving land for endangered wildlife.
Firstly, protecting the habitats of endangered animals is a prerequisite for lasting human prosperity rather than a competing luxury for people. For example, endangered species underpin the ecosystem services on which agriculture, cities and industry all quietly depend for survival. Consequently, pollination, water regulation and soil stability rely on intact land, so the loss of wildlife raises costs for food production and infrastructure. Moreover, clearing wetlands or wild areas for housing and manufacturing can increase flooding risks, imposing expensive engineering burdens on people. Indeed, reserving land for endangered animals therefore safeguards human needs and agriculture instead of undermining the growth of industry.
However, prioritising short-term human development over conservation also creates long-term economic and social risks for future generations. Admittedly, biodiversity loss reduces the resilience of land to climate change and disease, threatening livelihoods that rely on healthy wildlife. Although human development can be efficient, ignoring protected areas leads to irreversible extinctions of endangered animals across many regions. Therefore, integrated land-use planning, which concentrates housing and industry while preserving critical habitats, offers people a more balanced response. In this way, human demands for farmland need not be treated as superior to conserving endangered wildlife and animals.
In conclusion, habitat protection for endangered animals supports essential services and avoids costly damage, making conservation compatible with human development. Ultimately, by valuing wildlife within planning, societies can meet present human needs without sacrificing the irreplaceable animals of the natural world.
- 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.