Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
GRE Issue 63 There Is Little Justification To Save Endangered Animal Or Plant Species - With A Free Essay Review
GRE Issue 63 There is little justification to save endangered animal or plant species
Prompt: “There is little justification for society to make extraordinary efforts—especially at a great cost in money and jobs—to save endangered animal or plant species. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.”
The statement claims that there is little justification for society to make extraordinary efforts to save endangered flora or fauna. It may be true that saving endangered animals and plants at a great cost in money and jobs is a little bit unnecessary when money must be used in more serious complications. However, it is our duty to protect them since human activities have something to do with extinction of species. Also, numerous endangered animals and plants are valuable to some fields, such as medicine and biology. Therefore, we, human race, should try to save endangered creatures if money and human resources are plentiful.
If some urgent projects need lots of money and there is not enough money to satisfy the needs of both urgent projects and saving endangered species, it is justifiable for society not to make efforts to save animals in danger because undertaking urgent projects could produce much more value. For example, in some nations of Africa, people are suffering from hunger and some people, especially infants and kids, starve to death every day. Under such circumstances, even though some animals and plants are likely to become extinct, government authorities should spend their money to solve the problem of starvation rather than extinction. It is because if people die from the lack of food, there are no labor forces used to save endangered species. As a result, despite enough funds, extinction prevention could not be accomplished yet. Therefore, in some cases, it is not justifiable for government to make extraordinary efforts with respect to prevention extinction, if a large amount of its people suffer from hunger or extreme poverty.
However, if the lives of people in some nations are decent and these countries have sufficient money and other resources, it is necessary for these nations to make extra efforts to protect animals from extinction. Admittedly, it goes without saying that extinction of some species is caused by the natural processes. However, in most cases, human activities have enhanced the speed of extinction. Therefore, it is incumbent for people to save these poor species. Take America for example. With abundant resources, the government of America has established large numbers of national parks and protection areas for the purpose of rescuing endangered species. Apart from that, special scientists also help endangered species propagate and give birth. With this useful help, the number of animals is increasing at a steady speed.
In addition, saving endangered animals and plants could be beneficial to scientific fields, such as medicine, botany as well as biology. Take medicine for example. In some rare animals’ bodies, there may exists some chemical components which could be used to cure some dreadful diseases, such as AIDS. Therefore, protection from extinction might make great contributions to medicine. Consequently, the human race would be the beneficiary of its own benefaction. Therefore, making extraordinary efforts which might finally benefit people as a whole is a justifiable action.
In conclusion, if people in nations are extremely poor and hungry, these nations should make efforts to enhance the welfare of the people rather than saving animals. In other cases, countries should protect endangered species not only because we disrupt creatures’ lives to some extent but also because saving them leads to positive results.
The opening paragraph does a poorer job of clarifying your position than does the final paragraph. That is often the case when one starts writing before one finishes thinking (and everyone does this). When you say it is “a little bit unnecessary” to save endangered species in one sentence, and then say it is “our duty” to protect such species in the next, you seem to contradict yourself. Since what you go on to argue is that it is unjustifiable in poor countries, but justifiable in wealthy countries, that (obviously!) is what you should say here.
Your argument that it is incumbent on those who cause the problem to solve it is a good argument supported by a poor example. The example is only an example of a rich nation doing what you think ought to be done. The fact that America indeed does what you think ought to be done, however, obviously does not support your contention that it ought to do so (unless you think America only ever does what ought to be done). The argument, in this case, probably doesn’t need a supporting example, but if you want an illustrative example, the example should illustrate the whole point (that is to say, show that America is in some respect responsible for the problem it is trying to solve).
The earlier argument about poor nations not being justified in expending resources to safeguard threatened species is also reasonable. I can just about understand your explanation of why poor nations should focus on looking after humans, but it is very awkwardly articulated. (I’m talking about these sentences: “It is because if people die from the lack of food, there are no labor forces used to save endangered species. As a result, despite enough funds, extinction prevention could not be accomplished yet. “) I do think that argument is just a bit silly, insofar as it is imagining the most extreme possible scenario: we try to save animals; therefore the humans die; therefore all the animals die anyway. One would expect it would be enough to say that we should help humans, not animals, because humans are more important, but one could, I suppose, if one wanted to develop that argument further, justify it on the basis of whatever spiritual or metaphysical or ethical principle one carries around in one’s pocket. For instance, one might claim that human life has greater value because of the higher quality of its intellect, the occasional nobility of its passions and aspirations, the possible depth of its suffering, and the fact that humans, unlike most other animals, but like revolutionary pigs, walk on two feet.