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?
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（这个词太好了，把题目往死里批，强调观点） 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 （there be加宾语从句变化句式）we suddenly have the right to allow or encourage（用词准确多样） the extinction of any species. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason why （compelling好词，继续推进驳论观点）we should let animals die out. We do not need to exploit or destroy every last square metre of （地道搭配）land in order to feed or accommodate（词汇多样） the world’s population. There is plenty of room for us to exist side by side with （地道搭配）wild animals, and this should be our aim（废话流强调观点）.
I also disagree with the idea that protecting animals is a waste of resources. It is usually the protection of natural habitats that （强调句变化句式）ensures the survival of wild animals, and most scientists agree that these habitats are also crucial for human survival（类比论证有说服力）. For example, rainforests produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide and stabilise （展示词汇储备）the Earth’s climate. If we destroyed these areas（假设论证）, the costs of managing the resulting changes to our planet would far outweigh （做比较的好词）the costs of conservation（“保护”，高分同义替换）. By protecting wild animals and their habitats, we maintain the natural balance （搭配准确）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 （强调语气）to protect them.
(269 words, band 9)