Question: Some people think that wild animals should not be kept in zoos, while others believe that ...
Marking Generated by Free AI Models
You are on the free tier, which uses free AI models. They can occasionally be slow, unstable, or temporarily unavailable. Balang Plus uses premium models for faster, more reliable, and higher-quality marking.
Click on red question marks (?) to see an explanation for each change. Some changes are only suggestions and don't mean the original is necessarily wrong.
Nowadays many people do not consider zoos useful, thatwhich is why they should be closed. Personally, I agree that today zoos do not haveserve any purpose, especially when there are better alternatives whichthat cause fewer problems.
Many are concerned about the problems whichthat zoos cause to the environment, wild animals, and the natural world itself. According to the Oxford University research, in the areas where the zoos are heldlocated, there are worse situations with environmental issues. Furthermore, animals who are kept in zoos are often held there for no reason, as they are not injured and can survive on their own in the wild. There are often overcrowded spaces in such facilities, so animals do not have the opportunity to live in their natural waysnaturally, and more importantly, are not given the proper care,which they need in conditions of living in an unnatural environment.
As I have mentioned earlier, there are better alternatives to zoos if thosethey are closed. For example, there is anthe option of people taking care of the natural world, on in specifically dedicated to this purpose areas, where people can go to learn about wild nature in its full glory. This way, no animals are to be taken away from their usual habitat. This is called ecotourism, and the popularity of this activity has grown very fast, after theThe New-York Times didpublished an article about this nicegreat alternative of the zooto zoos. In the article, it has been wasclearly stated that ecotourism will eventually become a new ''"zoo''" which that is more naturalnature-friendly and can actually tellteach people about beingto be thoughtful of nature.
In conclusion, I would like to say that zoos are notno longer necessary anymore, as there are better alternatives, like ecotourism, which causes lessfewer problems and can benefit all - everyone—people's need for entertainment and the natural world.
While we are confident in our score estimation, you are not guaranteed to receive the same score in an official test.
Feedback on Your Essay
Task Achievement
Strengths: Your essay presents a clear opinion and discusses both views, though the focus is more on the negative aspects of zoos. You provide some relevant arguments, such as environmental concerns and the unnatural conditions for animals. The mention of ecotourism as an alternative is a strong point.
Areas for Improvement:
The prompt asks you to discuss both views equally, but your essay leans heavily against zoos. A more balanced discussion of the benefits of zoos (e.g., conservation, education, research) would strengthen your response.
Some claims (e.g., "zoos do not have any purpose") are too absolute. Acknowledging some benefits before refuting them would make your argument more persuasive.
The example of Oxford University research lacks specificity—adding a statistic or study name would improve credibility.
Coherence and Cohesion
Strengths: Your essay has a logical structure with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. The use of linking words ("Furthermore," "For example," "In conclusion") helps with flow.
Areas for Improvement:
Some sentences could be smoother. For example: "Many are concerned about the problems which zoos cause to the environment, wild animals and the natural world itself." → "Many argue that zoos harm the environment, wild animals, and ecosystems."
The transition between paragraphs could be improved. The second body paragraph starts abruptly—a linking phrase (e.g., "On the other hand, some argue...") would help.
Lexical Resource
Strengths: You use a range of vocabulary (e.g., "unnatural environment," "ecotourism," "natural-friendly"). The term "ecotourism" is well-explained.
Areas for Improvement:
Some word choices are awkward or incorrect:
"worse situations with environmental issues" → "worse environmental conditions"
"taken away from their usual habitat" → "removed from their natural habitat"
"causes less problems" → "causes fewer problems" (uncountable vs. countable nouns)
Avoid informal phrasing like "nice alternative"—use "viable alternative" instead.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Strengths: You demonstrate a mix of simple and complex sentences. Some correct uses of passive voice (e.g., "animals are often held").
Areas for Improvement:
Watch subject-verb agreement: "Many people do not consider zoos useful, that is why they should be closed." → "Many people believe zoos are unnecessary, which is why they argue for their closure."
Article errors: "the Oxford University research" → "research from Oxford University" (no "the" before university names unless part of the title).
Tense consistency: "the popularity of this activity has grown very fast, after the New-York Times did an article" → "the popularity of this activity grew rapidly after The New York Times published an article."
Final Suggestions
Balance the discussion by acknowledging some benefits of zoos before refuting them.
Support claims with specific examples (e.g., name a conservation program in zoos).
Proofread for grammar and word choice to avoid minor errors.
Use more formal and precise language where possible.
Overall, your essay has a clear stance and some strong arguments, but refining balance, grammar, and vocabulary would improve your score. Keep practicing!