Anda di halaman 1dari 4

Nowadays, animals experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and to test the

safety of other products. Some people argue that these experiments should be banned
because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?
Answer:
The action of testing on animals remains controversial. Some people believe that this decision is
beneficial for the security of human beings while others view it as inhumane and emphasize that
this action should be banned . I strongly agree with the latter view for the following reasons.
It is ,first, believed that animal testing ensures safety for humans lives. No sooner do consumers
know that products are well-tested on hundreds of animals than they may feel less scared and
ready to use them. Nevertheless, who can make sure that these products really work in humans
despite their effectiveness in animals. Even though, some studies have indicated that the body
and brain structures of certain animals such as mice are similar to those of humans, until now
there has had no empirical research to show that animals testings products are 100 percent
effective and safe in humans.
Secondly, it is argued that animal testing is much cheaper than that of humans. To ask for
humans to take part in research demands huge budget from money paid for participants, health,
insurance and other related services. Yet, price of killing animals is far more expensive. Were not
it for the existence of animals, our environment would be put in danger. Lets remember the
disappearance of dinosaurs which puts the entire world in jeopardy for a long time. Animals play
a critical role in balancing our ecology, undeniably. In addition, to some cultures, animals are
seen as saints, which means that the action of killing them for any purpose is a sacrilege. Like
humans, animals have the right to live and love.
In brief, I am strongly convinced by the idea of not taking the lives of animals for purpose of
testing because it is inhumane, unsafe and adversely affects the environment.
Answer:
The action of testing on animals remains controversial. Some people believe that this decision is
beneficial for the security of human beings while others view it as inhumane and emphasize that
this action should be banned . I strongly agree with the latter view for the following reasons.
Firstly, there are clear ethical arguments against animal experimentation. To use a common
example of this practice, laboratory mice may be given an illness so that the effectiveness of a
new drug can be measured. Opponents of such research argue that humans have no right to
subject animals to this kind of trauma, and that the lives of all creatures should be respected.
They believe that the benefits to humans do not justify the suffering caused, and that scientists
should use alternative methods of research.

Secondly, this action puts our environment in jeopardy. Studies have shown that the number of
endangered species is higher and higher day by day, and one of the reasons for this problem
results from animal experimentation. This might cause the imbalance in our ecology, which
endangers human survival. Lets remember the disappearance of dinosaurs which causes great
threaten to our environment for a long time. In addition, to some cultures, animals are seen as
saints, which means that the action of killing them for any purpose is a sacrilege. Like humans,
animals have the right to live and love.
In a nutshell, I am strongly convinced by the idea of not taking the lives of animals for purpose
of testing because it is inhumane, unsafe and adversely affects the environment
IELTS Writing Task 2: 'wild animals' 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?
Next, we need a 4-paragraph 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
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.
Answer 2:
Wild animals play an important role in humans lives. 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.
It is, first, believed that animals help balance our ecology. Scientific findings have revealed that
animals and humans have the close and interdependent relationship. It is very dangerous to
believe that we can survive by sacrificing the lives of these species. For example, If owls
disappeared/ If owls were to suddenly become extinct, mouse population would increase quickly
and damage harvests and agriculture, which leads to widespread famine.
Second, wild animals also benefit directly to humans. Economically, people generate a huge
profit thanks to protecting animals. For instance, since sao la, an extremely rare species of
animal, was found in Truong Son Range, a lot of projects of conserving has implemented there
and made great contribution to improving local peoples living standard. In addition, some
animals could be used as medicines against some diseases that are thought to be beyond
treatment such as cancer, AIDS, According a survey, a quarter of medicines prescribed in the
US contains active substances that are taken from animals (and plants). Thus, to give animals a
better environment is also to give ourselves safer lives. Like humans, animals also have the
feeling of pain, pleasure, fear, motherly love, loneliness and so on. We have no right to decide
their lives.
In conclusion, animals bring us a varieties of advantages, and lets save, love and see them as a
part of our lives before it is too late.
Answer 3:
Why do we protect wild animals? Many people think that wild animals are dangerous, they dont
belong to modern time so its waste of resources to conserve them. But I strongly disapprove this
idea because protecting them is a survival task for their huge role.
At first, every kind of animal, however small or huge, is an important part of where they live.
Every animal effects each other, constrains and keeps each other developing suitably, which is
called ecological balance. If any is extinct, this ecological balance isnt remained anymore, the
others will be at stake and at last human will suffer most. If owls disappeared, for example,
mouse population would increase quickly and damage harvests and famine might start.\nBesides,
wild animals also benefit directly to human. In way of commerce, wild animals can bring a lot of
money to us. For example, since sao la, an extremely rare species of animal, was found in
Truong Son Range, a lot of projects of conserving has gathered there and helped people living
there have better lives. Furthermore, some animals could be used as medicines against some

diseases that are thought to be beyond treatment such as cancer, AIDS, According a survey, a
quarter of medicines prescribed in the US contains active substances that are taken from animals
(and plants). But there are still a lot of secrets inside them so if animals wild disappears, they will
be secret forever!\nHowever, some people say that wild animals have been doing terrible things
like attacking people, damaging houses and farms, But considering everything, we can see that
we ourselves force them to do that: we hunt them, destroy forests their home, Therefore, that
we protect, give them a better environment is also to give ourselves safer lives.\nIn conclusion, if
we conserve wild animals, we will have benefits about ecology, commerce, medicine as long as a
safe world Otherwise, we create our own end. So why dont we protect wild animals?
Some people think that it is more effective for students to study in groups, while others
believe that it is better for them to study alone. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Plan your essay:
1. Introduction: study in groups or alone, sometimes better alone, usually better in a group
2. Body
2.1 Benefits of studying alone (1)
(2)Concentrate better, no distractions, focus on the task, (3)read books or articles, study at
own pace. E.g. when revising for an exam, (4)memorise information
2.2 (1)Benefits of group study (my view)
(2)More ideas, share knowledge, gather more information e.g (3)research project,(2) learn
from each other, (4)more motivating, responsible to the group, sense of competition
(develop ideas in detail, keep asking yourself why?, think of examples to support your
ideas, finally, try to group related ideas)