Are zoos cruel or vital for conservation
This is a model answer written to show what a Band 7 response looks like against the marking criteria. It is a worked example, not a graded submission. To see your own band, paste your writing into the free checker.
The prompt
Some people believe that zoos are cruel and should be closed, while others argue that they play an essential role in protecting endangered species. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Band 7 model answer (258 words)
Zoos divide opinion sharply: to some they are prisons for animals, while to others they are arks for species on the edge of extinction. Having weighed both positions, I believe well-run zoos are justified, but only when conservation genuinely comes before entertainment.
Those who want zoos closed make a serious moral case. Animals that would roam vast territories in the wild are confined to enclosures a tiny fraction of that size, and species such as elephants and big cats often show repetitive, distressed behaviour in captivity. Critics also point out that many zoos exist primarily to sell tickets, and that watching a bored animal pace a cage teaches children very little about nature.
Defenders of zoos respond that for some species, captivity is now the only alternative to extinction. Breeding programmes have saved animals such as the California condor and the Arabian oryx, which were later returned to the wild. Modern zoos also fund research and field conservation, and for millions of city children they provide the only direct encounter with wildlife they will ever have, an experience that can inspire lifelong concern for the natural world.
In my view, the disagreement is really about standards rather than existence. A cramped roadside zoo deserves closure, but an accredited institution with spacious habitats, active breeding programmes and honest education does measurable good that no documentary can replace.
In conclusion, zoos can be either cruel or vital depending on how they are run. I believe the best ones earn their place, provided animal welfare and conservation remain their true purpose.
Why this reaches Band 7
-
Task Response
Both views get a fair, developed paragraph with concrete support (distressed behaviour in captivity, the condor and oryx programmes), and the writer's own position, that "the disagreement is really about standards", is a genuine judgement rather than a vague middle ground.
-
Coherence and Cohesion
The ark and prison framing in the opening line sets up the whole essay, and each paragraph advances the debate one step, ending with a resolution rather than a repeat.
-
Lexical Resource
Strong topic vocabulary handled naturally: "breeding programmes", "accredited institution", "field conservation", "repetitive, distressed behaviour".
-
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Confident structures throughout, including the balanced "to some they are prisons... to others they are arks" and a reduced relative clause in "species on the edge of extinction".
The one fix to reach Band 7
Band 6 answers to discuss-both-views questions often summarise each side and then declare "both have merits". The move to Band 7 is a real opinion that resolves the tension, here by arguing the issue is zoo quality, not zoos in principle.
Now check your own answer.
Paste your own attempt at this prompt and Examinerly names the single criterion keeping you below your target band, and shows the sentence-level fix. We never inflate your band.
Check your writing free