GRE updated logo
Some People Believe that Society Should Try to Save Every Plant and Animal Species, Despite the Expense to Humans in Effort, Time, and Financial Well-being GRE Issue Essay
Rituparna Nath logo

Rituparna Nath

Content Writer at Study Abroad Exams

The Analytical Writing component of the GRE assesses your capacity to think logically and cohesively, as well as your ability to communicate and support your points. The AWA becomes a crucial tool for demonstrating your critical thinking and analytical abilities. Strong oratory skills, persuasive writing skills, and the capacity to reckon outside the box are all highly recognized by universities, so performing well in this area will offer you a boost over other applicants. Some People Believe that Society Should Try to Save Every Plant and Animal Species, Despite the Expense to Humans in Effort, Time, and Financial Well-being GRE Issue Essay model answer is given below.

Candidates can consider the following structure to the GRE Issue Essay divided into five paragraphs:

Introduction: Candidates must first describe the subject that has been presented to them, accompanied by the position that the essay will take. Furthermore, candidates should consider offering specific reasoning and examples for the GRE essay.
Body Paragraph 1: The most compelling rationale should be expressed first, followed by supporting instances and logical analysis. This reasoning paragraph should adequately corroborate the thesis and be related to the issue.
Body Paragraph 2: The second supporting rationale should be provided, accompanied by examples and logical analysis.
Final Paragraph: The final paragraph should address the counterargument given in the topic essay. Candidates must demonstrate that their point of view is correct and the counterargument is incorrect using a third example and rationale.
Conclusion: The essay ends with a conclusive note with the title's redressal and a short summary of all the paragraphs.

While following the structure the candidate should also take into consideration the following points. These points will help in constructing a better essay on the topic "Some People Believe that Society Should Try to Save Every Plant and Animal Species, Despite the Expense to Humans in Effort, Time, and Financial Well-being”.

  • Side: The first task of the candidate is to select whether he/she has to write in favor of the given topic or against it. Remember, you should select that point of view based on which you can write the best points.
  • Illustrations: A proper use of illustrations should be made to make the essay highly informative and descriptive. Furthermore, all these examples should be from the real world.
  • Relevance: All the examples and illustrations provided should be relevant and they should describe the title properly.
  • Cause and Effect: Examinees should use the cause and effect technique while writing the essay, i.e., there should be a cause inside the example and the corresponding consequences. This is a highly elaborative technique that increases the readability of the essay and allows the readers to understand the topic efficiently.

Read More GRE Issue Samples

Topic- Some people believe that society should try to save every plant and animal species, despite the expense to humans in effort, time, and financial well-being. Others believe that society need not make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species.

Model Answer

The belief that civilization should strive to save all plant and animal species, regardless of the cost to people in labor, energy, and monetary well-being, is based on accountability, and thus responsibility, as well as the implications of some species extinction on humans. On the other hand, the notion that society should not undertake the significant effort, especially at a high cost in terms of money and jobs, to rescue endangered species derives from the notion that certain species have a minor effect or are likely to become extinct. Depending on the species under examination, both viewpoints have some value and cannot be dismissed totally.

Awed by the vastness of planetary ecology, geologists are frequently persuaded that the Earth's slow metamorphosis has little to do with human activities. However, biologists who examine spectacular changes over decades say that the impact of human influences has grown to inconceivable proportions. The statement demonstrates how the two perspectives differ, prompting us to be alert. Society is essential for safeguarding as many biological species as possible because the majority of the world's disasters have occurred mostly as a result of the human species' destructive conduct over the last several millennia. Consider the tremendous extinction of endangered species as a consequence of global warming and changes in the environment. It is almost entirely clear that industrial exploitation is one of the primary causes of modern climate change. Many activists around the world have begun to take substantial political action to stop the destruction of the ecology. That is, despite the significant expenses of taking steps to save endangered species, society bears responsibility for its previous environmental harm.

Furthermore, saving as many natural species as possible and preserving a diverse ecosystem not only serves to help species survive on resources but also speeds up the development of a thriving civilization and a promising future for our successors. Human civilization has relied on agricultural resources and harvesting plants of various sorts throughout history. This implies that without natural resources, the human species cannot survive for a single second on the rough planet known as Earth. Any societal apathy to endangered species would rob nations of their natural legacy, future citizens of nature enthusiasts of exotic wild- and plant-life, and researchers of the opportunity to study varied species.

Any government must use limited resources to meet individuals' immediate needs for work, education, and healthcare. This is neither feasible nor ethical for any government to expend extraordinary efforts in terms of money, effort, and time to adequately conserve all endangered plants and animals. It is then necessary for society to prioritize the conservation demands of particular species over others. Some species have a far lesser risk of extinction than others, as indicated by their conservation status.

The health of the ecosystem is critical to human survival. Because every species is part of a massive food chain, the differentiation of one plant might lead to the distinguishing or explosion of other animals. In either case, it harms the ecosystem's balance and so directly impacts or threatens human existence.

Preserving flora and fauna is the obligation of everyone who exists and walks on Earth, not just one country. Those with means can contribute financially, while those without can contribute in a variety of other ways. Regardless of our history, every one of us can take a unique approach to preserve the integrity of nature. Furthermore, if we look at it from a logical standpoint that favors humanity, we should not allow plants or animals to perish since it will affect the ecosystem and even humans. Different living forms must coexist to preserve equilibrium, and the preservation of one species is directly or indirectly dependent on the survival of another.

Deforestation and tree cutting causes a rise in temperature, which causes icebergs to melt, resulting in flooding. Plants also create oxygen, which humans rely on. In this day and age, we ought to plant more trees to reduce pollution and global warming, not for the sake of others, but the sake of ourselves.

The universe was not just created for humankind, but also other life forms and organisms. The question offers two opposing viewpoints on if we should conserve the species at our own expense or not. Both viewpoints, in my opinion, have some validity and should not be dismissed. To summarize, determining whether to dedicate money to conserve organisms or other pressing issues has never been a simple decision. Nonetheless, I think that the implications of our interference with nature's equilibrium cannot be disregarded and that each of us bears responsibility. We can safeguard the wild and sustain our valuable ecosystem by overcoming resource inequalities.

Comments



No Comments To Show