for and against essay having a pet

ELTEC English

Teaching ielts students., ielts essay task 2: pet ownership’s advantages and disadvantages.

Many people keep dogs and cats as companions. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of pet ownership for the animals involved and for the community as a whole.

40 minutes, 250 words at least.

IELTS loves asking questions on ANIMALS/ Wild Life. Please go through the following links to go through more such essays.

Animal Species Facing Extinction .

Animal Rights

Introduction:   (Introduce the topic and MENTION a few advantages and disadvantages that you’ll EXPLAIN in the body paragraphs.)

Pets are a man’s best friend. Not only do they give a  company to a lonely person but also protect the owner as well as the property . However, keeping a pet has several disadvantages ranging from the threat of diseases in the event of non-vaccination to disturbance to the neighbors .

Body Paragraph 1: (Advantages)

Research has proven that the company of a dog or a cat keeps psychological problems such as depression away. These animals keep a person busy and give love and affection that increase overall happiness. These animals also help fight anxiety, inactivity and encourage exercise and playfulness. In many cases, people who did not own a pet reported better blood pressure and lower cholesterol once they owned a pet.  Moreover, dogs are extremely possessive of their owner as well as property. They guard the house against any external threat or interference.  Thus keeping pets is very helpful for households with children or old people.

Body Paragraph 2:   (Disadvantages)

However, pet ownership is not an easy job. Animals are often the source of many diseases such as asthma. The saliva and fur of a dog or a cat are a source of various diseases. Worse, a bite of a dog which is not properly vaccinated can cause life-threatening diseases as well. Keeping a check on a pet’s diseases is an extremely difficult job. Furthermore, dogs are sometimes a source of disturbance during the night. Many people have reported dog howling and barking at night as a severe form of stress. 

Conclusion   (Conclude with future and/or impact. You can state your opinion as well.)

In conclusion, despite several drawbacks of keeping a pet, animals such as a dog are extremely beneficial in dealing with stresses and insecurities of a modern lifestyle. They are not only good friends but also an excellent protector from any possible threat.

Please feel free to ask any questions in the comments section.

Here is a student’s essay on this topic along with corrections. Let us learn from each other’s mistakes.

Follow this blog for more such exciting IELTS and PTE essays and like our Facebook Page . Let’s crack English language exams. You can contact us here .

Share this:

Categories: Blog , Writing Task 2

Tagged as: dogs , essay , IELTS , pets , PTE , task 2 , writing

1 reply »

Can you please rate this article as well. I mean, it would be great to mention the projector score of this essay. Thanks

Leave a comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Follow Blog via Email

Your email address to learn amazing IELTS and PTE English.

Email Address:

Latest Answer Corrections

• IELTS Essay Evaluation: Fixed Punishment For Each Type of Crime.
• IELTS Essay Evaluation: Living Close To Where They Were Born.
• IELTS Essay Evaluation: Plastics Damage Environment.
• IELTS Essay Evaluation: Best Time To Live.
• IELTS Essay Evaluation: Driverless Cars.
• IELTS Essay Evaluation: Animal Extinction.
• IELTS Essay Evaluation: Teaching Money Management to Students.
• IELTS Essay Evaluation: Advertising Products As New.
• IELTS Essay Evaluation: Try New Things.
• IELTS Essay Evaluation: Spend Money On Computers Or Teachers?

Like us on Facebook

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Essay on Having a Pet

Students are often asked to write an essay on Having a Pet in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Having a Pet

Introduction.

Having a pet is a joyous experience. Pets are not just animals; they become a part of our family, bringing happiness and companionship.

The Joy of Having Pets

Pets offer unconditional love and loyalty. They’re always there to cheer us up, making our lives more enjoyable. Playing with pets can also relieve stress.

Pets Teach Responsibility

Having a pet teaches responsibility. Pets need care and attention, teaching us about commitment and empathy.

Health Benefits of Pets

Pets can be good for our health too. Walking a dog encourages exercise, and stroking a cat can lower blood pressure.

In conclusion, having a pet is a rewarding experience that brings joy, teaches responsibility, and promotes health.

250 Words Essay on Having a Pet

The companionship of pets.

Pets have long been regarded as man’s best friend, providing companionship, loyalty, and emotional support. They are not just animals, but rather an integral part of our lives, enriching our experiences and teaching us about empathy, responsibility, and unconditional love.

Psychological Benefits

Research has indicated that having a pet can significantly reduce stress levels and improve mental health. The simple act of petting an animal can trigger the release of endorphins, creating a sense of calm and happiness. Furthermore, pets can alleviate feelings of loneliness, providing a sense of purpose and companionship.

Physical Health and Well-being

Pets, particularly dogs, require regular exercise, which inadvertently encourages their owners to lead more active lifestyles. This can result in improved cardiovascular health, reduced obesity rates, and overall better physical health.

Teaching Responsibility and Empathy

Having a pet is a long-term commitment that requires responsibility. Feeding, grooming, and caring for a pet can teach individuals, especially young adults, about responsibility. Moreover, pets can help develop empathy as we learn to understand and cater to their needs.

In essence, having a pet is a rewarding experience that offers numerous benefits. It is a relationship that goes beyond the physical realm, touching upon emotional and psychological aspects. Despite the challenges and responsibilities that come with pet ownership, the invaluable lessons and companionship they offer make it a worthwhile endeavor.

500 Words Essay on Having a Pet

The joy and responsibility of having a pet.

Pets, in many ways, can be considered as an extension of our family. They provide companionship, emotional support, and can even contribute to improved physical health. However, owning a pet also comes with significant responsibilities and potential challenges.

The Psychological Benefits of Pet Ownership

The psychological benefits of having a pet are well-documented. Research indicates that pets can help reduce stress, anxiety, and depression. Their constant companionship can alleviate feelings of loneliness and isolation, fostering a sense of belonging and purpose. For instance, the act of petting a dog or a cat has been shown to release oxytocin, a hormone associated with stress reduction and mood enhancement.

Physical Health Advantages

Beyond mental health, pets also contribute to physical health. Regular walks with a dog, for example, promote cardiovascular health and fitness. Pets can also help their owners maintain a regular sleep schedule, as they typically require feeding, exercise, and bathroom breaks at consistent times.

Life Skills Acquired

Owning a pet can also impart valuable life skills, particularly for young adults. The responsibility of caring for another living being can foster empathy, compassion, and responsibility. It also provides an opportunity to learn about the cycle of life and death, helping to develop emotional resilience.

The Challenges of Pet Ownership

Despite these benefits, pet ownership is not without its challenges. The financial costs can be significant, encompassing food, veterinary care, grooming, and potential property damage. Pets also require time and attention, which can be difficult for busy individuals or families. Moreover, pets can limit spontaneity, as their needs often require planning and cannot be easily delegated.

Choosing the Right Pet

Choosing the right pet is a crucial step in ensuring a positive pet ownership experience. This decision should be based on lifestyle, living situation, financial capability, and personal preference. For example, a dog may be a poor choice for someone with a busy schedule or limited living space, while a cat or a fish may be a more suitable option.

In conclusion, owning a pet can be a rewarding experience, offering numerous psychological and physical health benefits. However, it is not a decision to be taken lightly, as pets require significant time, attention, and financial resources. Prospective pet owners should carefully consider their lifestyle and capabilities before welcoming a pet into their home. Ultimately, the joy and companionship pets offer can greatly enrich our lives, making the challenges worthwhile.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Harriet Tubman
• Essay on Happiness
• Essay on Gun Violence

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• The interrelationship between assessment, planning, teaching and learning
• Knowing your students
• Identifying learning outcomes and sharing success criteria
• Gathering assessment information
• Involving learners actively in assessment
• Enhancing teacher feedback
• Improving the trustworthiness of assessment
• Reporting and using assessment information
• Evaluating and developing teacher assessment literacy
• Establishing and enhancing assessment programs
• Key terminology
• Common oral assessment tool
• Reading and vocabulary assessment tool
• Common writing assessment tool
• Other useful assessment tools
• Integrating assessment and planning
• Plants and Gardens – Foundation, Levels A1 and A2
• Minibeasts – Years 1 and 2, Level A2
• What’s the matter? – Years 3 and 4, Level B3
• Marvellous Melbourne – Years 3 and 4, Levels B1 and B2
• ‘A Fair Go’ – Rules and laws – Years 5 and 6, Levels B2 and B3
• Indigenous Superstars – Years 5 and 6, Levels B2 and B3
• How can I reach my peak performance? – Years 5 and 6, Level B3
• ‘Matilda’ text study – Years 7 and 8, Level C1
• Procedural texts – Year 7, Levels C1 and C2
• Volcanoes – Years 7 and 8, Level C2
• Mobile phones – Years 9 and 10, Levels C2 and C3
• ‘Macbeth’ text study – Years 9 and 10, Levels C3 and C4
• Teacher discussion forum
• Benchmarking forum
• Register to post in the TEAL forums
• What’s new?

12. The advantages and disadvantages of having a pet

Please click on the toggles below to navigate through information on this assessment task and reveal the links for downloading task materials.

TEAL Writing Task 12 – unmarked criteria sheet [PDF]

TEAL Writing Task 12 – unmarked criteria sheet [Word]

An explanation of the purpose, nature and use of criteria sheets is available at 4. Using the assessment criteria.

Home language: Vietnamese

Biographical information:

English language centre (secondary)

The purpose and nature of the task

The expressing of opinions and use of argument with supporting reasons or evidence is a prominent text type in public discourse in Australia, as well as in academic study in English and humanities subjects. This task involves formal argumentative discourse and linking of opinions to evidence in relation to a topic students may have experience of or know something about, owning a domestic pet such as a cat or a dog. The task provides teachers with assessment information about their EAL students' skills in expressing opinions and presenting support for a point of view in a piece of formal writing.

The task requires students pay some attention to presenting arguments to both support and contradict a point of view. It also expects students to express an opinion on the topic. There is scope for the students to do this within an essay that either strongly supports a particular opinion and therefore has a partisan quality in relation to the topic, or which has a more detached tone and is more descriptive of the arguments presented on the issue, and less on supporting particular opinions. There is a complex interrelationship between the ways arguments are presented and the ways they are used to support an opinion and downplay alternative opinions. The intention of this task is more to look at EAL students' skills in presenting points of view and supporting arguments, rather than the more sophisticated skills involved in a powerful texts intended to contribute to argument and change opinions.

The range of samples illustrate different levels of skill in presenting reasons to support arguments. They do this within different levels of argument, some present argument within a strong expression of a particular point of view, while others are more detached, providing description of arguments that may be used to support different opinions.

The sample shows an understanding of the task and an ability to write a simple argument on the disadvantages and advantages of having a pet dog.

The text shows that the student is able to express simple opinions with supporting reasons and is able to organise them within a given text structure framework. The student uses simple, compound, complex sentences employing clauses of reason.

The student uses timeless present tense to express general statements.

The student is able to use full stops to mark sentences correctly but has variable use of appropriate upper and lower case.

The student is reliant on extensive use of text model/framework to accomplish the task.

The marked criteria sheet shows that the student meets most criteria at level 1 of performance and some at level 2.

The student’s language use in this task is consistent with the descriptions of students at Level C2, Victorian Curriculum F-10 EAL.

Using this assessment for further learning

(Select the points you think are currently of most importance to the student.)

The sample draws attention to the student’s need to develop persuasive language for comparing, contrasting and conceding opposing arguments to a thesis. It also highlights the student’s sensitivity to and ability to learn from modelled texts.

This language can be modelled and developed by having the student complete an elaborated cloze text based on the student’s own sample which targets contrastive argumentation words or phrases such as ‘although’, ‘however’, ‘on the other hand’. This process could then be repeated with reduced degrees of modelled support.

The sample shows an understanding of the task and an ability to write a two-sided argument on the disadvantages and advantages of having a pet dog.

The text shows that the student is able to state and justify a simple thesis and is able to organise arguments within a given text structure framework. The student uses compound and complex sentences employing clauses of reason and condition.

The student is able to use standard spelling and punctuation.

The student employs the stimulus text to accomplish the task.

The sample shows a text that best fits the criteria in .

The marked criteria sheet shows that the student meets most criteria at level 2 of performance and some at level 3.

The sample shows the student’s ability to write a simple cohesive two-sided argument text but highlights their need to develop a wider repertoire of argumentation language and rhetorical/persuasive devices.

This language can be modelled and developed by getting the student to complete an elaborated cloze text based on the student’s own sample which targets a range of persuasive language functions and devices such as addition (‘moreover’), exemplification (‘for instance’), contrast  (‘however’, on the other hand’), and concession (‘although’). This process could then be repeated with reduced degrees of modelled support until students have mastered the language.

Biographical information

The sample shows an understanding of the task and an ability to write a quite elaborate argument and to and justify a single point of view relating to the topic. However it is framed in terms of keeping wild animals as pets, rather than disadvantages and advantages of having a pet dog.

The text shows that the student can sustain a line of argument using a range of persuasive language functions and devices. While there are features of persuasive writing present in the text, the text itself is a single paragraph, which has an introductory sentence that is not completely satisfactory as a topic sentence.

The student uses compound and complex sentences and timeless present tense to express opinions. However, there are also some problems of sentence construction, and errors of subject-verb agreement.

The student uses standard spelling and variable punctuation.

The marked criteria sheet shows that the student meets some criteria at level 3 of performance, while some are also at level 2 and even level 1.

The sample shows the student’s ability to elaborate and justify a single point of view, employing a wide repertoire of argumentation language and rhetorical/persuasive devices. The sample also highlights their need to develop skills in organising the text into coherent paragraph units and an ability to consider two sides of an argument.

These skills can be developed by having the student complete text deconstruction and reconstruction exercises around persuasive texts which involve identifying paragraph units within a single run-on text, and sequencing and labelling paragraph texts to make a single coherent text. At the same time, these texts could also model two-sided argumentation.

While the sample shows an understanding of the communicative purpose of the task and of persuasive texts, and an ability to sustain and support a balanced two-sided discussion of an issue, the text has problems of cohesion and structure. The first paragraph, is not labelled, seems to be a set of arguments for keeping domestic animals, but the second paragraph headed 'DISADVANTAGES' presents opposing arguments.

The text shows that the student can sustain arguments using a repertoire of persuasive language functions and devices at sentence level. However, the organisation of the text is not so strong and it lacks cohesion as a sustained presentation of a point of view, despite effective use of a range of sentence-level ways of expressing ideas and giving supporting reasons.

The student uses compound and complex sentences and timeless present tense to communicate arguments.

The student uses standard spelling and punctuation.

The marked criteria sheet shows that the student meets many criteria at level 3 of performance, and some at level 4.

The student’s language use in this task is consistent with the descriptions of students at Level C3, Victorian Curriculum F-10 EAL.

The sample shows the student’s ability to write a balanced two-sided discussion of an issue in response to a stimulus text. The competence and sophistication of the student’s writing at sentence levels suggest that the student’s needs lie in the area of consolidating and extending skills in structuring a persuasive texts.

These skills could be developed by asking the student to clearly identify the argument they want to present and re-write it using the following structure:

TOEFL essay: For and against essay of having a pet

For and against essay of having a pet

Pets have accompanied mankind since the dawn of history. Allegedly, the domestication of animals begun along with the Neolithic Revolution (approximately between 10-12 thousand years ago). Some people either hate or love this accompaniment. For sure, there are various disadvantages and advantages of having a pet, which I will try to point out in my essay.

In my opinion, one major advantage of having a pet is that they can replace people and become one of our nearest and dearest. For instance, if someone lives alone he would find it very enjoyable of having a pet. Furthermore, presence of an animal at home may provide greater feeling of security (especially when this pet is a dog). In addition to this, pets often play the main role in both, the handicapped and disabled people’s lives.

Nevertheless, keeping a pet involves lots of responsibilities. Firstly, there are some extra costs which appear along with animals. The pet-holder always needs to calculate constant expenses into budget, because his favourite requires food, equipment (cages, collars, aquarium, etc.) and probably veterinary treatment. Apart from this, if you decide to buy a pet you will certainly tied yourself up with this animal, because from this moment you will always have to, before going anywhere from town, take into consideration your pet’s needs.

Taking everything into account, I realise that my stance in this matter is rather balanced. There are both good and bad sides of keeping a pet at home. In my opinion, everything depends on an individual character of the pet-owner, his particular relishes. I suppose that the relations between the animals and humans are as much diverse and complicated as they are between people themselves.

Best regards from Poland !

TOEFL listening lectures: What does the professor imply about Leonardo da Vinci?

. [i]Overall, your ideas are good and are well-expressed, and your essay has a good basic structure. Nevertheless, I have suggested many corrections. Please compare your original and my revisions carefully.

Here are some points I noticed particularly: (1) don’t change person unnecessarily, (2) avoid personal comments (‘I think’, ‘I suppose’, etc), and (3) avoid parentheses.[/i]

Pets have accompanied mankind since the dawn of history . The domestication of animals began in the Neolithic Revolution 10-12 thousand years ago . People either love or hate this companionship . There are advantages and disadvantages to having a pet , which are discussed below. One major advantage of having pets is that they can substitute for people and become one of their nearest and dearest companions. For instance, if someone lives alone he will find a pet very enjoyable . Furthermore, the presence of an animal in the home may provide a greater feeling of security , especially when this pet is a dog. In addition to this, pets often play a major role in disabled people’s lives.

Nevertheless, keeping a pet involves many responsibilities. First, there are extra costs involved . The pet owner needs to budget for his pet’s food , equipment (cages, collars, aquarium, etc.) and veterinary care . Apart from this, if a person decides to buy a pet , he will certainly tie himself up with this animal : from that moment he will always have to take into consideration his pet’s needs before going anywhere.

Taking everything into account , the pros and cons are rather balanced. There are both good and bad sides to keeping a pet. Everything depends on the character of the individual pet owner , what he particularly relishes . The relations between animals and humans are as diverse and complicated as they are between people themselves. .

Regards, Nasir

Is Pet Ownership Ethical?

Animal Rights and Welfare Activists on Animal Domestication

• University of Southern California
• Animal Rights
• Endangered Species

Because of pet overpopulation, just about all animal welfare activists would probably agree that we should spay and neuter our cats and dogs. But there would be some disagreement if you were to ask whether we should breed cats and dogs if all the shelters were empty and there were good, loving homes available.

Animal industries such as the fur industry and factory farms try to discredit animal protection groups by claiming that activists want to take people’s pets away. While some animal rights activists do not believe in keeping pets, we can assure you that no one wants to take your dog away from you — as long as you're treating it well.

Arguments for Pet Ownership

Many people consider their pets to be members of the family and thus treat them with love and respect. Oftentimes, this feeling appears to be mutual, as dog and cat pets seek out their owners to play, pet or invite them into their laps. These animals provide unconditional love and devotion — to deny them and us this relationship seems unthinkable to some.

Also, keeping pets is a much more humane way for them to live as opposed to  factory farms , animal testing labs or circuses use and abuse the animals. However, thanks to regulations passed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture like the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 , even these animals are entitled to a basic quality of life as sentient beings. 

Still, even the Humane Society of the United States argues that we should keep our pets — according to one official statement "pets are creatures with whom we share a world, and we rejoice in their companionship; you don't have to anthropomorphize to recognize that the feelings are returned...let us be close and cherish each other always." 

The vast majority of animal activists advocate spaying and neutering. However, most will say that the reason is the millions of cats and dogs who are killed in shelters every year, as opposed to any basic opposition to the keeping of pets.

Arguments Against Pet Ownership

On the other side of the spectrum, some animal activists argue that we should not keep or breed pets regardless of whether we have an overpopulation problem — there are two basic arguments that support these claims.

One argument is that cats, dogs, and other pets suffer too much at our hands. Theoretically, we may be able to provide good homes for our pets, and many of us do. However, in the real world, animals suffer abandonment, cruelty, and neglect.

Another argument is that even on a theoretical level, the relationship is inherently flawed and we are unable to provide the full lives that these animals deserve. Because they are bred to be dependent on us, the basic relationship between humans and companion animals is flawed because of the difference in power. A sort of Stockholm syndrome, this relationship forces animals to love their owners in order to get affection and food, oftentimes neglecting their animal nature to do so.

The animals rights activist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) opposes keeping pets , partially for this reason. An official statement on their website states that animals' "lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink and even urinate when humans allow them to." It then goes on to list common "mistreatments" of these house pets including declawing cats, not cleaning litter boxes and scolding any creature to get off the furniture or hurry up on its walk.

A Happy Pet Is a Good Pet to Have

The opposition to keeping pets must be distinguished from a call to release domesticated animals. They are dependent on us for their survival and it would be cruel to turn them loose on the streets or in the wilderness.

The position must also be distinguished from any desire to take anyone’s dogs and cats away. We have a duty to take care of the animals who are already here, and the best place for them is with their loving and caring human guardians. This is why animal rights activists who oppose keeping pets might have rescued pets themselves.

Activists who oppose keeping pets believe that domestic animals should not be allowed to breed. The animals who are already here should live long, healthy lives, cared for with love and respect by their human guardians. As long as the pet is happy and lives a life of love without undue suffering, for most people, animal rights and welfare activists alike, pets are definitely fine to have!

• The Top 10 Animal Rights Issues
• Factory Farming Is More Destructive Than Ever
• Pets Are Good for Your Health, and We Have the Studies to Prove It
• What's the Difference Between a Zoo and a Sanctuary?
• Arguments for and Against Humane Meat
• The Argument for Animal Rights
• Why Filmmakers Gave Guinea Pigs Their Own Documentary
• What Are Animal Rights?
• Responses to Top Arguments Against Animal Rights
• Should Dogs Have Legal Rights?
• 6 Animals with Pets of Their Own
• Why Animal Rights Activists Are Against the AKC
• Western Australia Bans Puppy Mills, Dog Sales in Pet Shops
• Animal Rights and the Ethics of Testing
• What's Wrong With Aquariums?
• 4,000 Beagles Rescued From Massive Virginia Breeding Facility

• Writing Correction
• Online Prep Platform
• Online Course
• Speaking Assessment
• Ace The IELTS
• Target Band 7
• Practice Tests Downloads
• IELTS Success Formula
• Essays Band 9 IELTS Writing Task 2 samples – IELTS Band 9 essays
• Essays Band 8 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS essays of Band 8
• Essays Band 7 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS essays of Band 7
• Essays Band 6 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS essays of Band 6
• Essays Band 5 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS essays of Band 5
• Reports Band 9 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS reports of Band 9 (Academic Writing Task 1)
• Reports Band 8 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS reports of Band 8
• Reports Band 7 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS reports of Band 7
• Letters Band 9 IELTS Writing Task 1 – samples of IELTS letters of Band 9
• Letters Band 8 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS letters of Band 8
• Letters Band 7 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS letters of Band 7
• Speaking Samples
• Tests Samples
• 2023, 2024 IELTS questions
• 2022 IELTS questions
• 2021 IELTS questions
• 2020 IELTS questions
• High Scorer’s Advice IELTS high achievers share their secrets
• IELTS Results Competition
• IELTS-Blog App

IELTS Essay, topic: keeping pets to live a more enjoyable life

• IELTS Essays - Band 5

Some people believe that having a pet such as a cat or a dog helps old people to live a more enjoyable life and to stay healthier. How do you think old people benefit from having a pet? Do you think there are any problems related to old people who have pets?

In conclusion, it is true that obstacles still exist for elderly people in adopting pets, but the benefits of this topic its . For such reasons, instead of , further support would be far more beneficial.

You have made an attempt to accomplish the task response. However, there are quite a few mistakes in the essay – the main problematic areas are grammar, sentence structure and word choice. In addition, the length of the task response could be reduced. This task response needs to be worked on and improved. Revise grammar and work on your sentence structure. Avoid writing more than 280 words to save time and reduce the number of mistakes, and remember to always proofread your work once you’re finished. Overall, this looks like a Band 5.5 essay

Click here to see more IELTS essays of band 5

Related posts:

• IELTS essay, topic: Is it acceptable that enormous sums are paid for pieces of art when many people around the world live in poverty? This is a model response to a Writing Task 2...
• IELTS essay, topic: Many university students nowadays live away from home and their parents (advantages/disadvantages) This essay topic was seen in a recent IELTS test...
• IELTS essay, topic: Many people try to achieve a work-life balance but fail (reasons and solutions) This essay topic was seen in a recent IELTS test...
• IELTS Report, topic: Process diagram describing the life-cycle of the car (from IELTS High Scorer’s Choice series, Academic Set 2) This is a model response to a Writing Task 1...
• IELTS essay, topic: Should school children be given homework (opinion)? This is a model response to a Writing Task 2...

1 thought on “IELTS Essay, topic: keeping pets to live a more enjoyable life”

Pingback:  IELTS Essay Samples of Band 5 | IELTS-Blog

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Photo by Brian Rueb Photography/Getty

The case against pets

A morally just world would have no pets, no aquaria, no zoos. no fields of sheep, no barns of cows. that’s true animal rights.

by Gary L Francione & Anna E Charlton   + BIO

We live with six rescued dogs. With the exception of one, who was born in a rescue for pregnant dogs, they all came from very sad situations, including circumstances of severe abuse. These dogs are non-human refugees with whom we share our home. Although we love them very much, we strongly believe that they should not have existed in the first place.

We oppose domestication and pet ownership because these violate the fundamental rights of animals.

The term ‘animal rights’ has become largely meaningless. Anyone who thinks that we should give battery hens a small increase in cage space, or that veal calves should be housed in social units rather than in isolation before they are dragged off and slaughtered, is articulating what is generally regarded as an ‘animal rights’ position. This is attributable in large part to Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation (1975), who is widely considered the ‘father of the animal rights movement’.

The problem with this attribution of paternity is that Singer is a utilitarian who rejects moral rights altogether, and supports any measure that he thinks will reduce suffering. In other words, the ‘father of the animal rights movement’ rejects animal rights altogether and has given his blessing to cage-free eggs, crate-free pork, and just about every ‘happy exploitation’ measure promoted by almost every large animal welfare charity. Singer does not promote animal rights ; he promotes animal welfare . He does not reject the use of animals by humans per se . He focuses only on their suffering. In an interview with The Vegan magazine in 2006, he said, for example, that he could ‘imagine a world in which people mostly eat plant foods, but occasionally treat themselves to the luxury of free-range eggs, or possibly even meat from animals who live good lives under conditions natural for their species, and are then humanely killed on the farm’.

We use the term ‘animal rights’ in a different way, similar to the way that ‘human rights’ is used when the fundamental interests of our own species are concerned. For example, if we say that a human has a right to her life, we mean that her fundamental interest in continuing to live will be protected even if using her as a non-consenting organ donor would result in saving the lives of 10 other humans. A right is a way of protecting an interest; it protects interests irrespective of consequences. The protection is not absolute; it may be forfeited under certain circumstances. But the protection cannot be abrogated for consequential reasons alone.

Non-human animals have a moral right not to be used exclusively as human resources, irrespective of whether the treatment is ‘humane’, and even if humans would enjoy desirable consequences if they treated non-humans exclusively as replaceable resources.

W hen we talk about animal rights, we are talking primarily about one right: the right not to be property. The reason for this is that if animals matter morally – if animals are not just things – they cannot be property. If they are property, they can only be things. Think about this matter in the human context. We are all generally agreed that all humans, irrespective of their particular characteristics, have the fundamental, pre-legal right not to be treated as chattel property. We all reject human chattel slavery. That is not to say that it doesn’t still exist. It does. But no one defends it.

The reason we reject chattel slavery is because a human who is a chattel slave is no longer treated as a person, by which we mean that the slave is no longer a being who matters morally. A human slave is a thing that exists completely outside the moral community. All the interests that the human slave has can be valued by someone else – the owner – who might choose to value the slave as a member of the family, or could provide the slave with minimal sustenance but otherwise treat the slave horribly. The slave’s fundamental interests might be valued at zero.

There were many laws that purported to regulate race-based human slavery in the United States and Britain. These laws did not work because the only times regulatory laws are relevant is when there is a conflict between slave and slave owner. And, if the slave owner does not prevail substantially all of the time, then there is no longer an institution of slavery. There can be no meaningful challenge to the exercise of the owner’s property rights.

The same problem exists where non-humans are concerned. If animals are property, they can have no inherent or intrinsic value. They have only extrinsic or external value. They are things that we value. They have no rights; we have rights, as property owners, to value them . And we might choose to value them at zero.

There are many laws that supposedly regulate our use of non-human animals. In fact, there are more such laws than there were laws that regulated human slavery. And, like the laws that regulated human slavery, they don’t work. These laws are relevant only when human interests and animal interests conflict. But humans have rights, including the right to own and use property. Animals are property. When the law attempts to balance human and non-human interests, the result is preordained.

however ‘humanely’ we treat animals, they are still subjected to treatment that, were humans involved, would be torture

Moreover, because animals are chattel property, the standard of animal welfare will always be very low. It costs money to protect animal interests, which means that those interests will, for the most part, be protected only in those situations in which there is an economic benefit in doing so. It is difficult to find a welfare measure that does not make animal exploitation more efficient. Laws requiring the stunning of large animals before slaughter reduce carcass damage and worker injuries. Housing calves in smaller social units rather than in solitary crates reduces stress and resulting illness, which reduces veterinary costs.

To the extent that animal welfare measures increase production costs, the increase is usually very small (eg, going from the conventional battery cage to ‘enriched cages’ in the EU) and rarely affects overall demand for the product given elasticities of demand. In any event, however ‘humanely’ treated animals used for food are, they are still subjected to treatment that, were humans involved, would be torture. There is no such thing as ‘happy’ exploitation.

Although the right not to be property is a negative right and does not address any positive rights that non-humans might have, recognition of that one negative right would have the effect of requiring us, as a matter of moral obligation, to reject all institutionalised exploitation, which necessarily assumes that animals are just things that we can use and kill for our purposes.

W e want to take a short detour here and point out that, although what we are saying might sound radical, it’s really not. Indeed, our conventional wisdom about animals is such that we come to almost the same conclusion without any consideration of rights at all.

Conventional wisdom about animals is that it is morally acceptable for humans to use and kill them but that we should not impose unnecessary suffering and death on animals. However we might understand the concept of necessity in this context, it cannot be understood as allowing any suffering or death for frivolous purposes. We recognise this clearly in particular contexts. For example, many people still have a strong negative reaction to the American football player Michael Vick, who was found to be involved in a dog-fighting operation in 2007. Why do we still resent Vick almost a decade later? The answer is clear: we recognise that what Vick did was wrong because his only justification was that he derived pleasure or amusement from harming those dogs, and pleasure and amusement cannot suffice as justifications.

Many – perhaps most – people object to bullfighting, and even most Tories in the UK oppose fox hunting. Why? Because those bloodsports, by definition, involve no necessity or compulsion that would justify imposing suffering and death on non-human animals. No one proposed that Vick would be less culpable if he were a more ‘humane’ dog fighter. No one who opposes bloodsports proposes that they be made more humane because they involve unnecessary suffering. They oppose the activities altogether, and advocate their abolition, because these activities are immoral, however they are conducted.

The problem is that 99.999 per cent of our uses of non-human animals are morally indistinguishable from the activities to which the overwhelming number of us object.

The only use of animals that we make that is not transparently frivolous is the use of animals in research to find cures for serious illnesses

Our most numerically significant use of animals is for food. We kill more than 60 billion animals for food annually, and this does not count the even larger number – estimated conservatively to be about a trillion – of sea animals. We don’t need to eat animals for optimal health. Indeed, an increasing number of mainstream healthcare authorities, including the National Institutes of Health in the US, the American Heart Association, the British National Health Service, and the British Dietetic Association, have stated that a sensible vegan diet can be just as nutritious as a diet that includes animal foods. Some authorities have gone further to say that a vegan diet can be healthier than an omnivorous diet. In any event, it cannot be credibly claimed that we need animal products for health reasons. And animal agriculture is an ecological disaster.

We consume animal products because we enjoy the taste. In other words, we are no different from Vick, except that most of us pay others to inflict the harm rather than inflicting it ourselves. And our uses of animals for entertainment or sport are, by definition, also unnecessary. The only use of animals that we make that is not transparently frivolous is the use of animals in research to find cures for serious illnesses. We reject vivisection as morally unjustifiable even if it involves necessity (a claim we also believe is problematic as an empirical matter), but the morality of vivisection requires a more nuanced analysis than the use of animals for food, clothing, entertainment and other purposes. Just about all of our other uses of animals can easily be seen to be immoral given our conventional wisdom.

The bottom line: whether you adopt an animal-rights position and recognise that animals must have a basic, pre-legal right not to be property, or you stay with conventional wisdom, the result is the same: substantially all of our uses of animals must be abolished.

T o say that an animal has a right not to be used as property is simply to say that we have a moral obligation to not use animals as things, even if it would benefit us to do so. With respect to domesticated animals, that means that we stop bringing them into existence altogether. We have a moral obligation to care for those right-holders we have here presently. But we have an obligation not to bring any more into existence.

And this includes dogs, cats and other non-humans who serve as our ‘companions’.

We treat our six dogs as valued members of our family. The law will protect that decision because we may choose to value our property as we like. We could, however, choose instead to use them as guard dogs and have them live outside with virtually no affectionate contact from us. We could put them in a car right now and take them to a shelter where they will be killed if they are not adopted, or we could have them killed by a veterinarian. The law will protect those decisions as well. We are property owners. They are property. We own them.

The reality is that in the US, most dogs and cats do not end up dying of old age in loving homes. They have homes for a relatively short period of time before they are transferred to another owner, taken to a shelter, dumped or killed.

And it does not matter whether we characterise an owner as a ‘guardian’, as some advocates urge. Such a characterisation is meaningless. If you have the legal right to take your dog to a kill shelter, or to ‘humanely’ kill your dog yourself, it does not matter what you call yourself or your dog. Your dog is your property. Those of us who live with companion animals are owners as far as the law is concerned, and we have the legal right to treat our animals as we see fit as long as we provide for minimal food, water and shelter. Yes, there are limitations on the exercise of our ownership rights. But those limitations are consistent with according a very low value to the interests of our animal companions.

But, as you recoil in horror thinking of what life would be like without your beloved dog, cat or other non-human companion, whom you love and cherish as a member of your family, you are probably thinking: ‘But wait. What if we required everyone to treat their animals the way I treat mine?’

The problem with this reply is that, even if we could come up with a workable and enforceable scheme that required animal owners to provide a higher level of welfare to their animals, those animals would still be property. We would still be able to value their lives at zero and either kill them, or take them to a shelter where they would be killed if not adopted.

You might respond that you disagree with all that as well, and that we ought to prohibit people from killing animals except in situations in which we might be tempted to allow assisted suicide (terminal illness, unrelenting pain, etc) and that we should prohibit shelters from killing animals except when it is in the best interests of the animal.

domestication itself raises serious moral issues irrespective of how the non-humans involved are treated

What you’re suggesting starts coming close to abolishing the status of animals as chattel property and requiring that we treat them in a way that is similar to the way we treat human children. Would it be acceptable to continue to breed non-humans to be our companions then?

Our answer is still a firm ‘no’.

Putting aside that the development of general standards of what constitutes treating non-humans as ‘family members’ and resolution of all the related issues is close to impossible as a practical matter, this position neglects to recognise that domestication itself raises serious moral issues irrespective of how the non-humans involved are treated.

Domesticated animals are completely dependent on humans, who control every aspect of their lives. Unlike human children, who will one day become autonomous, non-humans never will. That is the entire point of domestication – we want domesticated animals to depend on us. They remain perpetually in a netherworld of vulnerability, dependent on us for everything that is of relevance to them. We have bred them to be compliant and servile, and to have characteristics that are pleasing to us, even though many of those characteristics are harmful to the animals involved. We might make them happy in one sense, but the relationship can never be ‘natural’ or ‘normal’. They do not belong in our world, irrespective of how well we treat them. This is more or less true of all domesticated non-humans. They are perpetually dependent on us. We control their lives forever. They truly are ‘animal slaves’. Some of us might be benevolent masters, but we really can’t be anything more than that.

There are some, such as Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka, who in their book Zoopolis (2011) say that humans are dependent on each other, and ask what’s wrong with animals being dependent on us? Human relationships might involve mutual dependence or interdependence, but such dependence either operates on the basis of choice, or it reflects social decisions to care for more vulnerable members of society who are bound together and protected by the complex aspects of a social contract. Besides, the nature of human dependence does not strip the dependant of core rights that can be vindicated if the dependence becomes harmful.

There are those who respond to our position by saying that dogs, cats and other ‘pet’ animals have a right to reproduce. Such a position would commit us to continue to reproduce without limit and indefinitely, as we could not limit any reproductive right to ‘pet’ animals. As for those who are concerned that the end of domestication would mean a loss of species diversity, domesticated animals are beings we have created through selective breeding and confinement.

Some critics have claimed that our position concerns only the negative right not to be used as property, and does not address what positive rights animals might have. This observation is correct, but all domestication would end if we recognised this one right – the right not to be property. We would be obliged to care for those domesticated animals who presently exist, but we would bring no more into existence.

If we all embraced the personhood of non-humans, we would still need to think about the rights of non-domesticated animals who live among us and in undeveloped areas. But if we cared enough not to eat, wear or otherwise use domesticated non-humans, we would undoubtedly be able to determine what those positive rights should be. The most important thing is that we recognise the negative right of animals not to be used as property. That would commit us to the abolition of all institutionalised exploitation that results in the commodification and control of them by humans.

We love our dogs, but recognise that, if the world were more just and fair, there would be no pets at all, no fields full of sheep, and no barns full of pigs, cows and egg-laying hens. There would be no aquaria and no zoos.

If animals matter morally, we must recalibrate all aspects of our relationship with them. The issue we must confront is not whether our exploitation of them is ‘humane’ – with all of the concomitant tinkering with the practices of animal-use industries – but rather whether we can justify using them at all.

The cell is not a factory

Scientific narratives project social hierarchies onto nature. That’s why we need better metaphors to describe cellular life

Charudatta Navare

Stories and literature

Terrifying vistas of reality

H P Lovecraft, the master of cosmic horror stories, was a philosopher who believed in the total insignificance of humanity

Sam Woodward

The dangers of AI farming

AI could lead to new ways for people to abuse animals for financial gain. That’s why we need strong ethical guidelines

Virginie Simoneau-Gilbert & Jonathan Birch

Thinkers and theories

A man beyond categories

Paul Tillich was a religious socialist and a profoundly subtle theologian who placed doubt at the centre of his thought

War and peace

Legacy of the Scythians

How the ancient warrior people of the steppes have found themselves on the cultural frontlines of Russia’s war against Ukraine

Peter Mumford

Public health

It’s dirty work

In caring for and bearing with human suffering, hospital staff perform extreme emotional labour. Is there a better way?

Susanna Crossman

• Newsletters

Site search

• Israel-Hamas war
• 2024 election
• Kate Middleton
• TikTok’s fate
• Supreme Court
• All explainers
• Future Perfect

Filed under:

The case against pet ownership

Why we should aim for a world with fewer but happier pets.

Share this story

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: The case against pet ownership

Some days, when the doomscrolling becomes too much, I switch up my social media consumption to something I call petscrolling. It’s the act of swiping through an endless feed of Instagram reels featuring resilient three-legged rescue dogs hiking in the woods, feisty yet charming shop cats, and the occasional potbellied pet pig splashing around in a kiddie pool.

The internet is awash in this feel-good content starring some of the 250 million animals — nearly one for every person — who populate American households. It all reinforces the inherent goodness of the ancient human-animal bond, and lets us believe that where there are pets — whom most owners consider to be family members — there is joy, love, play, and hope.

There’s plenty of all that in my household, thanks to my sweet and spunky rescued pit bull mix, Evvie, one of many animals I’ve lived with during my lifetime. In the middle of 2020, she was picked up as a stray puppy in Greenville, North Carolina, before being passed through several foster homes. My partner and I took her home the day we met her, but only after hours of deliberation over whether I felt I had the time and energy to give her the life she deserved. (Evvie was young and full of energy, and I had just started at Vox.)

Evvie instantly added so much to our lives, and for a while, I assumed our relationship was reciprocal and that she gets just as much from our bond as I do. But recently I’ve begun to wonder if she’s a lot more bored and frustrated than I previously thought. That led me to read the stirring 2016 book Run, Spot, Run: The Ethics of Keeping Pets by author and bioethicist Jessica Pierce.

Pierce wants to show people like me the shadows beneath the sunny narrative of pet ownership, things like physical abuse , animal hoarding , puppy mills , dog fighting , and bestiality .

But beyond such extremes, Pierce’s work aims to direct our gaze to where more subtle, but far more common, forms of everyday neglect and cruelty lie. To Pierce, even well-meaning pet owners may have a lot to answer for: punitive training, prolonged captivity and extreme confinement, mutilations (declawing, ear and tail docking), outdoor tethering, lack of autonomy, verbal abuse, monotonous and unhealthy diets, lack of grooming, and inadequate veterinary care. (In 2016, about one-fifth of dog owners and half of cat owners didn’t bring their animal in for routine or preventive care, which is highly recommended .)

Add to the bill lack of exercise and socialization, boredom, and even abandonment. (Almost one-fifth of pet owners surveyed late last year said they were considering giving up their pets due to cost amid high inflation, which is generally not an option for other “family members.”)

All this is possible because, unlike children, pets aren’t really family members — they’re property without legal rights and few laws to protect them. And because abuse and neglect primarily occur in the privacy of the home, there’s little accountability for it. Even the most responsible pet owners, which I’d count myself among, are bound to fail to meet the needs of their animals due to other responsibilities and the inherent challenges of keeping a dog or cat in a world made for humans.

We may see ourselves as the best of animal lovers, but we very well could be inflicting suffering on our pets every day.

Pet-keeping “is like a sacred cow in a way,” Pierce told me. “Everybody assumes that pets are well off, and in fact, pampered … All they have to do is lay around in a bed and get fed treats every now and then and catch a Frisbee if they feel like it — like, who wouldn’t want that life?

“Underneath that is the reality that doing nothing but laying on a bed and having treats fed to you is profoundly frustrating and boring and is not a meaningful life for an animal.”

Animals in a human world

Since humans domesticated dogs (over 20,000 years ago ) and cats (over 10,000 years ago ), who some say are merely “ semi-domesticated ,” their roles have evolved largely from one type of work — hunting and guarding — to another: companionship. And counterintuitively, says Pierce, being a constant companion is a tougher job.

“Dogs are still working dogs; they’re just doing a different kind of work,” she said. “I think it’s actually much more dangerous and difficult work than any other kind of work we’ve ever asked them to do.”

We demand companionship with as little friction as possible, expecting our pets (especially dogs) to be docile and agreeable, and to adapt quickly to the human world, with its countless rules and norms that mean nothing to them. And then when they inevitably fail to do so at first, we deem their natural habits misbehavior in need of correction, or abandonment.

It’s telling that the world’s most popular dog trainer, Cesar Millan, partly relies on dominance and control to bring his subjects to heel. (Millan popularized the “dominance theory” approach to dog training, which has been debunked by scientists and criticized by the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior. A meta-analysis found that punitive training can increase dogs’ fear, anxiety, and stress.)

To serve the guard-to-companion evolution, a $136 billion pet industry has sprung up in recent decades to breed, transport, and sell tens of millions of animals a year — often in terrible conditions — and provide all the accoutrements of the modern pet, from food to toys to veterinary care to perfume for dogs . And just as Millan and his legion of followers bend some dogs’ behavior to their will, breeders have done the same for dogs’ genetics to make some breeds particularly agile , small, or cute — in other words, more attractive to humans. America’s current most popular breed, the French bulldog — and other flat-faced dogs, like pugs, boxers, and Shih Tzus — suffer from a variety of health issues because of how they were bred, leading journalist and Vox contributor Tove Danovich to call the Frenchie “a breed that’s been broken to accommodate us.”

And while approximately 30 to 40 percent of cats and dogs are acquired from shelters, not all of those adoptions work out — 7 to 20 percent are eventually returned, often due to complaints over the animals’ behavior. (Incompatibility with other pets, allergies, and cost are other top reasons).

Then there’s the estimated 97 million rabbits, birds, hamsters, gerbils, mice, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and other small animals kept as pets — mostly wild, social animals who spend their lives largely confined and isolated in cages and tanks. Their owners may love them, but their cramped and unnatural living arrangements are not so different from the pigs and chickens we raise for food.

A number of animal welfare scholars, like Pierce, are challenging the rosy picture that the pet industry — and pet owners, myself included — have painted around the domestic human-animal bond, and sometimes pose a radical question: should we end pet ownership? I’m increasingly inclined to think the answer could be yes — or that at the very least, there should be far fewer pets, and those owners should be prepared to put in the time and effort to provide them with far better lives.

The secret, boring life of pets

Before the cat dads and dog moms come for me, know this: I am one of you.

I’m an “animal person,” having spent half my life advocating for, and now reporting on, their welfare. I’ll always share a house with a rescued dog or cat. But Evvie’s needs, and my constant inability to meet them, have led me to question the whole endeavor of pet keeping.

As much as my partner and I lavish her with treats, walks, tug-of-war, playtime with other dogs , enrichment games, and less than legal off-leash romps in the woods outside our home in Silver Spring, Maryland, she spends much of her days with nothing to do but look out the window. We both work from home, which means there’s a fair amount of commotion and engagement to keep her stimulated. But despite that, Evvie is inevitably left to herself for much of the day — and she seems quite bored, with her extended periods of sleep followed by barking at me for attention (which she stops as soon as we play or go on a walk). And Evvie is comparatively lucky: in 2011, the average pet owner spent just about 40 minutes a day with their supposed family member.

Scientists have set up cameras to see what dogs do when home alone all day, and it turns out there’s a lot of yawning, barking, howling, whining, and sleeping — signs of anxiety and frustration. Charlotte Burn, a biologist and associate professor at the Royal Veterinary College in London, thinks our pets could also become bored when left alone for hours at a time.

“For most of us, [boredom is] a transient thing, and we can do something about it,” Burn told me. “But when you cannot do anything about it, it’s incredibly distressing. … Sometimes it’s thought of as a kind of luxury problem for animals, but actually, it may not be so luxurious if [an animal] can’t do anything about it, and it might be actually a massive welfare issue.”

Burn says there are two main animal responses to boredom. The first is drowsiness, brought on by an animal not having enough to do to stay awake, which looks to humans like staring into space, yawning, or sighing, even if the animal isn’t tired. The second is restlessness, even engaging in behaviors to help them stay awake. “They’ll try and escape their situation,” she says. “They’ll take risks, they’ll explore things even if they don’t like them, just basically to try and almost wake themselves up and make something happen.”

When we think about our pets, we naturally think about the brief time we spend with them — not their quiet, dull hours while we’re occupied with work, child care, friends, or errands while they’re cooped up. They might be excited when we come home not necessarily because they’re so delighted to see us, but because there’s finally an end to the silence that fills so much of their day.

“I think dogs are very adaptable, and become accustomed, often, to their lack of choices and autonomy,” said Alexandra Horowitz, a leading expert on dog behavior and head of the Horowitz Dog Cognition Lab at Barnard College, over email. “But I think that it’s not a good situation for them.”

Just how uneven the relationship is between pets and their human owners was demonstrated during the pandemic when, lonely and stuck at home, one in five households adopted a new pet. As new pet owners returned to work, however, their newly lonely pets struggled with the sudden change, showing high rates of chewing, digging, barking, escaping, pacing, hiding, and indoor urination and defecation.

Our pets might not be so bored if they just had some autonomy, but having a pet means regularly denying it. If Evvie’s hungry, she can’t grab a snack from the fridge. If she wants to play with another dog, I have to schedule it, or take her to the dog park (which for some dogs can be a blast and for others, overwhelming or dangerous , with some dogs dominating others, leading to stress and injuries). If she wants to explore the great outdoors, she has to wait until I have the time to take her for a walk — and even then, she’s tethered to a pesky leash, which I gently pull whenever she does something so harmless as stray too far into a neighbor’s yard to smell something that interests her or race ahead to greet a nearby dog or human.

As good as Evvie has it compared to most pets, she’s still a dog living in a world built for humans, and that means a life of constantly thwarted desires. The ability to meet her basic needs is entirely dependent upon someone else. Pets as we own them live in our worlds, not theirs.

What about cats? Cat behaviorists say they too can get bored . Few issues in the pet community spark as much debate as to whether cats should stay indoors or be given the freedom to come and go as they please in order to meet their needs for exercise, mental stimulation, and hunting, especially when that hunting results in the mass death of wildlife. (A 2013 paper estimates that cats in the US kill 1.3 to 4 billion birds and 6.3 to 22.3 billion small mammals annually, while wind turbines are estimated to kill a few hundred thousand birds to north of a million , each year).

The estimate has been contested , but even if it’s grossly off-base, it’s still a whole lot of death that’s a direct result of humanity’s semi-domestication and breeding of a once-wild animal. It’s also another example of a complicated ethical issue in which the welfare of pets is in conflict with the welfare of other animals (like killing animals for meat to feed pets).

So if we’re keeping more pets than ever, but many of the dogs are unhealthy and bored, the cats are either bored or cute little wildlife hunters, and the pet fish and birds are cruelly confined, what do we do about it? Some leading animal welfare experts say we ought to shrink the pet population and shift pet ownership from a casual hobby to a serious responsibility.

A world without pets — or one with happier pets?

Starting in 1979, Bob Barker of The Price is Right signed off each episode with a public service announcement: “This is Bob Barker reminding you to help control the pet population — have your pets spayed or neutered.”

1979 was a different time for cats and dogs in America; by one estimate, 7.6 to 10 million of them were euthanized annually around that time. While the national pet population has grown considerably in the years since, the number of shelter cats and dogs euthanized — while still depressingly high — has fallen to an estimated 920,000 per year. There are a lot fewer strays, too. For example, in the mid-1980s New Jersey had 160,000 cats and dogs roaming the streets, which fell to 80,000 in 2014.

The dramatic reduction came about as a result of increased pet sterilization at veterinary clinics, a rise in shelters and animal welfare organizations, and PSA campaigns like Barker’s and others from animal welfare groups — such as “Adopt, don’t shop” — all contributing to a cultural shift in how we get, and treat, our pets. But while 30 to 40 percent of cats and dogs are acquired from animal shelters, many of them — especially dogs — are still the product of breeding: whether at large-scale puppy mills , in which dogs are raised and sold more like livestock than family members, or from more informal, small-scale home operations.

But what if every prospective dog and cat owner were to actually follow the “adopt, don’t shop” motto and Barker’s plea to spay or neuter their pet? It would be a Children of Men situation for domesticated pets. The pet population would rapidly shrink before virtually disappearing altogether, ushering in a world unimaginable — perhaps not even worth inhabiting — for the most diehard cat and dog lovers.

Would that be so bad? For pet-loving humans, definitely. My relationship with Evvie is deeply enriching (for me, at least). I’m excited to see her each morning, to watch her run full-speed through the forest, roughhouse with other dogs, and wag uncontrollably each time I walk through the front door. Life without dogs would be far duller.

But keeping pets shouldn’t only be about me or you — it’s a relationship, and one in which humans arguably take much more than they give. And by continuing pet keeping as it’s done now — by breeding millions of new puppies, kittens, fish, and other animals each year — we’re making the decision that all the overt abuse and lower-grade cruelty and neglect is more than made up for by the joy wrought by the human-animal bond. I’m no longer so sure it is.

Gary Francione and Anna Charlton, a firebrand animal rights couple who teach law at Rutgers University, don’t think it is and have advocated for the abolition of pet ownership.

“Domesticated animals are completely dependent on humans, who control every aspect of their lives,” they wrote in a provocative essay for Aeon in 2016. “Unlike human children, who will one day become autonomous, non-humans never will. That is the entire point of domestication — we want domesticated animals to depend on us. They remain perpetually in a netherworld of vulnerability, dependent on us for everything that is of relevance to them.”

Because pets are property under the law, they argue, welfare standards will always be too low. We need to care for the ones in existence, but stop breeding new ones.

“I love living with dogs, but even I think that owning dogs can easily be considered morally questionable and may change in the future,” said Horowitz, the dog cognition expert.

I relate to Horowitz’s doubts, and find Francione’s and Charlton’s arguments persuasive, though given the popularity of pets — and the ancient human-animal bond — abolishing pet ownership is a political and cultural nonstarter. What might be more realistic is to radically rethink how we acquire and treat them, and just what we owe them.

When I asked Marc Bekoff , an ethologist at the University of Colorado Boulder who’s co-authored books with Pierce (and Jane Goodall), about whether we should phase out pet ownership, he said it’s perhaps a few thousand years too late to ask that question.

“In the best of all possible worlds, we wouldn’t have evolved to where we are now with dogs, because so many of the problems with dogs come down to selective breeding by humans deciding which traits they find cute or appealing,” he said, pointing to flat-faced dogs like the French bulldog.

He’d like to see puppy and kitten mills phased out amid a major cultural shift wherein people would only get a dog or cat if they have the time, money, patience, and energy to give them a good life. The motto would be: fewer pets with better lives. “You’re dealing with a sentient being who has very specific and enduring needs, and if you can’t fulfill them,” you should think twice, he said.

Pierce, a parent herself, has written about the importance of families with children thinking twice about getting a pet. Kids can be excited about a new pet one month and move on to another interest the next month — or just fail to take good care of the animal in the unique ways the pet needs (because they’re a child!). Families with children can also be more prone to neglecting their pets because child care, understandably, comes first.

While a lot of people call their pets “fur babies,” we’d be wise to think of them more as actual dependents, because they are. For most of human history, childhood wasn’t really a thing — children existed, at least in part, in service of their parents as additional labor. That has, of course, changed drastically over the last few hundred years, and with it, attitudes and habits around how we treat children. As part of that shift, though, the expectations for parenting rose as well, so much so that those expectations have become a major reason why people are having fewer or no children . Perhaps the same should happen for pets in the future. While the average pet probably has a much better life today than they did just 50 years ago, there’s still much room for improvement, but the demands would be such that fewer people would be in a position to become pet owners.

What pet owners should know

If you do decide to get a cat or dog, it’s imperative to adopt so as to prevent one more euthanasia among the millions of animals languishing in shelters, living lives that are likely worse than what they might experience even with a generally neglectful owner. And experts say it’s critical to understand that a good life is subjective — every individual animal is different — but it goes far beyond the basic requirements of sufficient food and water, protection from injury, and a walk here and there.

When surveyed , people are motivated to acquire a pet to fulfill their own emotional or practical needs: companionship, love, and affection, someone to greet them, property protection, or help while hunting. But taking a more animal-centered approach to keeping pets — focusing as well on what the human can give in the relationship — would go a long way to improving their quality of life.

For example, it doesn’t just mean taking the dog on a walk but letting them direct the route and giving them as much time as they’d like to smell , which is how they make sense of the world around them. For Bekoff, it also means ensuring they’re not left alone all day while their human is at work.

“Some people I know just leave their house at seven in the morning, they go to work, they go work out, or they go out for dinner, so the average dog is just going to be alone all day,” he said. “And then they get home and they’re tired, and they don’t walk them and they give them crappy food. Those people should not have a dog.”

While most veterinarians oppose letting cats free to roam outdoors, largely to prevent more cats from becoming roadkill, only six out of 10 are kept entirely indoors. Whichever side of the indoor-outdoor debate you choose, there are ways to give cats more of what they need. If your cat does have outdoor access, try giving them a colorful collar , which catches birds’ attention, gives them time to fly away, and can drastically reduce the avian body count. You can also try taking your cat for a walk on a leash (even if your neighbors might give you a double take).

“If you decide to keep a cat indoors, then you really have to work hard to compensate for what you’ve taken from them,” Pierce said. “[Your house] should look like a house where a cat lives, with perches and highways that they can walk across high up above the floor.” She recommends the book — this is the real title and author name — Total Cat Mojo: The Ultimate Guide to Life with Your Cat by Jackson Galaxy , whose YouTube channel includes videos on how to cat-ify one’s home.

Pets could benefit from more diverse diets , and there are also plenty of “enrichment” toys for cats and dogs. More importantly, enrichment games can be played with dogs to put their innate scavenging and sniffing skills to work. Good starting points for more animal-centered pet keeping include applying concepts like positive reinforcement training and cooperative care , and studying material from experts like Pierce, Horowitz, Galaxy, Bekoff, and anthrozoologist and cat expert John Bradshaw.

It’s harder for me to conceive of how one could ethically keep smaller animals, like birds , reptiles , rodents , fish , and amphibians . Unlike cats and dogs, these are naturally wild, undomesticated animals who are social and meant to fly, swim, or move great distances in a single day. As pets, they suffer in isolation and intensive confinement. It might be time we stop breeding them (or taking them from the wild, as some are actually trafficked wildlife ). We should give as good a life as possible to the ones who remain, through larger and more enriching enclosures, and eventually phase out of keeping them as pets.

For the animals we do have in our homes, we need to bring an attitude of give and take to the relationship, and we’re going to have to give a lot more than we’re currently taking.

“You’re really still asking these dogs or cats or other animals to live in a human-dominated world,” Bekoff said. “Cutting them some slack and giving them more choice and control or agency over their lives is a win-win for everyone.”

When my partner and I adopted Evvie six months into the pandemic, like so many others , I figured that a brisk walk or two a day, occasional playtime with other dogs, and brief games of tug-of-war between work meetings was enough to give her a good life. I’ve come to realize that’s the bare minimum.

I think a world with far fewer pets is a better one, though I know Evvie won’t be my last, so long as there are animals in need of adoption from shelters. But rescuing a dog or cat is just the start. Those who are mildly interested in acquiring a pet need to think long and hard about the steep responsibility that lies ahead, and us self-described animal lovers ought to do much more to live up to our stated values.

Will you help keep Vox free for all?

At Vox, we believe that clarity is power, and that power shouldn’t only be available to those who can afford to pay. That’s why we keep our work free. Millions rely on Vox’s clear, high-quality journalism to understand the forces shaping today’s world. Support our mission and help keep Vox free for all by making a financial contribution to Vox today.

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

Next Up In Future Perfect

Sign up for the newsletter today, explained.

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

Thanks for signing up!

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

The Baltimore bridge collapse and its potential consequences, explained

Should we care about RFK Jr. and his new running mate?

The sexual assault and trafficking allegations against Diddy, explained

Even the Supreme Court seems sick of its abortion pills case

Connections, the most fun (and sometimes frustrating) game on the internet

Beyoncé’s country roots

IELTS Practice.Org

IELTS Practice Tests and Preparation Tips

• Band 9 IELTS Essays

Band 9 essay sample | Keeping pets can cause health problems in children

by Manjusha Nambiar · January 24, 2017

Essay topic

Some people think that keeping pets is good for children while others think it is dangerous and unhealthy. Which opinion do you agree with? Discuss both options and give examples.

Sample essay

Whether to have a pet or not remains a controversial issue. While some people are against having pets, in my opinion, domestic animals have a positive impact on our physical and psychological health and wellbeing. Also they make great companions for our children.

People who are against having pets argue that playing with them can cause serious health problems in human beings especially children. Of course, there are people who keep spiders and snakes as their pets. These creatures are certainly dangerous and pose considerable threat to the life of their owners. However, the vast majority of pets do not belong to this category. Another argument against keeping pets is that they can cause skin allergies and aggravate bronchial asthma. These health concerns are real and I feel that people who are susceptible to them should stay away from animals. Animal rights activists also claim that keeping pets away from their natural habitats will affect their health and the food chain. However, in my opinion, if their owners take good care of them, keeping them at home is unlikely to have any adverse impact on their health.

While it is true that keeping a pet may have some ill effects on our health, the benefits of having one are more significant. Pets improve our mood and health. Playing with the pets or taking them for a walk will keep both children and adults fit and healthy. What’s more, most people keep dogs, cats and fish; however, serious accidents caused by pets remain rare and statistically insignificant. Last but not the least, having a pet makes children more responsible. They learn to take care of another life and also become more sensitive, caring and sympathetic.

To sum up, although there are some minor drawbacks to owning a pet, in my opinion, the advantages of having a pet are far more significant. Pets make great companions and prevent depression in children and adults.

Tags: ielts essay sample

Manjusha Nambiar

Hi, I'm Manjusha. This is my blog where I give IELTS preparation tips.

• Next story  IELTS essay about obesity and its causes and solutions
• Previous story  IELTS essay sample about shootouts and liberal gun laws

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

• Academic Writing Task 1
• Agree Or Disagree
• Band 7 essay samples
• Band 8 Essay Samples
• Band 8 letter samples
• Discuss Both Views
• Grammar exercises
• IELTS Writing
• Learn English
• OET Letters
• Sample Essays
• Sample Letters
• Writing Tips

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

IELTS Practice

15 reasons why having a pet is good for you and your family

• Owning a pet can positively impact not only your health but also your lifestyle.
• Couples who own a pet together have lower blood pressure and interact with each other more than couples who do not own a pet.
• Studies show that pet owners are more likely to get to know people in their neighborhood than those who do not have a pet.
• Animals can help children by teaching them about empathy and responsibility, and can even boost their literacy skills.

• Visit Insider's homepage for more stories .

Whether you have a dog, cat, bird, or anything in between, pet ownership can be an adventure.

A furry friend can also keep you company through the stress or isolation of the coronavirus pandemic — this may be why pet adoption and fostering have spiked recently .

While people who adopt an animal usually think they're changing its life for the better, pets have just as much of a positive impact on the lives of their owners. If you're still on the fence about whether or not you should adopt a pet, here are 15 reasons why you need one in your life.

Having a pet can improve your mood.

Owning a pet can help reduce stress you're feeling amid the pandemic. According to studies , spending time with your pet can trigger an increased level of oxytocin, also known as the "love hormone." This is responsible for the feeling of closeness and increased bonding with your pet. It can also increase your overall mood .

Pets can also improve your social life.

Your pet could be the perfect conversation starter for your next Zoom call, but owning a pet could also help you make more friends once social distancing guidelines lift. 

Dogs are naturally curious about their environment, including other dogs and people, and they can be the catalyst for social interactions. If you own a dog, you might find strangers approaching you to ask about them.

But other pets like cats can increase your social circle  as well. According to a 2015 study conducted in Australia and the US, pet owners were significantly more likely to get to know people in their neighborhood than those who did not own a pet.

If you're looking for love, a pet can help with that, too.

Pets can be a great way to increase your chances of finding love . According to a survey by Purina , 54 percent of surveyed pet owners said their pets helped them start a conversation with someone they were interested in. Nearly two thirds of people said they were likely to date someone who owned a pet, and one in three would want to meet someone who has pictures of their pet in their online dating profile.

And if you're in a relationship, a pet can make you both happier and less stressed.

According to research cited by Psychology Today, couples who own a pet together have lower blood pressure and are happier on average than their peers. They also interact more with each other than couples who don't own a pet.

Owning a pet can make you a better person.

According to a study by BarkBox , owning a dog can make you a better person (or at least make you think you are!). Of those surveyed for the study, 93% of pet owners said they could easily name at least one way their pet had made them a better person, including making them noticeably more patient or affectionate.

Bringing your pet to work can boost your morale and help control your stress levels.

Showing off your pet can brighten those work-from-home video meetings, not only for yourself but also for your co-workers.

A 2012 study conducted at a North Carolina manufacturing company found that employees who brought their dogs to the workplace experienced lower stress levels throughout the day, reported being happier in their jobs, and had a higher opinion of their employer.

Pets can also help you unwind after a long day at work.

Pets can give you comfort and a sense of relief. A 2003 study  found the act of petting an animal after a stressful situation reduced feelings of anxiety. "The anxiety-reducing effect applied to people with different attitudes towards animals and was not restricted to animal lovers," the study noted.

Having a pet nearby, especially a dog, can make you feel more secure.

Large dog breeds like German shepherds and Rottweilers make for great deterrents from outside threats, allowing their owners to feel safer. The popularity of Rottweilers has risen in recent years thanks to " their loyalty, confidence and protective instincts. "

You always have someone to snuggle with on cold nights.

While pets may disturb their sleep at times, some owners enjoy the comfort of curling up with their pet close by. They can make you feel at peace as you drift off to sleep.

Whether it's taking them for a walk or doing yoga, pets can make you more physically active.

Dubbed the " Lassie effect ," taking your dog for a walk also makes you more physically fit and increases the chance you're going to get your daily exercise.

You'll find immeasurable joy in playing fetch with your dog, or teaching your pet tricks.

Almost every dog owner knows the joy of playing fetch with them on a nice summer day. You can teach your dog to shake hands, roll over, and bark on command, but dogs aren't the only ones that can be taught tricks. Cats can also be trained to sit and high five on command. 

While they're not as fluffy as cats or dogs, birds like parrots can be life-long companions.

Birds are social creatures and love to play games and perform tricks. But unlike other animals, parrots and other birds have the ability to learn and mimic human speech. They also have life spans on par with a human's, with some parrots living to be over 100, meaning you'll have a friend for life.

Owning a pet can help your child's learning.

Having a pet at an early age can boost a child's confidence and empathy levels , according to Blue Cross. Pets are natural listeners, and your child may feel more comfortable practicing their reading skills aloud in front of a pet than another person. 

A pet can also teach your child about responsibility.

According to a national survey by the American Pet Product Association, 58 percent of pet owners said their animals help teach their children to be responsible. From an early age, a child can help feed, walk, and bathe a family pet.

Pets can also be the inspiration for great creative works.

Pets inspire people in various of ways. English actor Oliver Reed reviewed his movie script with his cat, Felix, nearby. When he was coming up with his theories, Albert Einstein would often watch his cat, Tiger, move about. It was an injured dog that inspired Florence Nightingale to become a nurse. 

• A photographer captured photos of 15 pairs of dogs and their owners that look hilariously alike
• This dog adopted an abandoned kitten after losing her own puppies, and the photos will warm your heart
• 12 dogs with disabilities who are living their best life
• Belarus the cross-eyed rescue cat has stolen the hearts of thousands online, and now he's helping other animals in need

• Main content

Advantages and disadvantages of having pets at home

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

• Check your IELTS essay »
• Find essays with the same topic
• View collections of IELTS Writing Samples
• Show IELTS Writing Task 2 Topics

Some people say that the main environmental problem of our time is the loss of particular species of the plants and animals. Others say that there are more important environmental problems. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Countries are becoming more and mote similar because people are able to buy the same products anywhere in the world., nowadays the population of young people is more than old people in the countries. and it benefits us. to what extent do you agree or disagree, below is the life cycle of frogs. summarize the process and highlight the key points., explain sone of the ways in which humans are changing the environment. what can governments do to address these problems what can individual people do.

Advanced Search >

Family pets: Pros and cons for kids

Pets can be an important part of a family and have a big impact on a child. The decision to have or not have a pet can involve a lot of factors including timing, the kind of pet, and who will take responsibility for it. The C.S. Mott Children's Hospital National Poll on Children's Health asked a national sample of parents of children ages 5-18 about reasons to have or not have a family pet.

Two-thirds of parents (69%) report their family currently has a pet, and 16% say they had one in the past. The most common pets are dogs (76%), cats (41%), fish, birds, and reptiles (24%), and small mammals such as rabbits or guinea pigs (9%).

Many factors go into deciding whether or not to have a family pet. Parents with pets endorse a number of reasons for children having a pet. The top reason rated as very important for children to have a pet is for fun and companionship (63%). Other reasons include that a pet would teach their child responsibility (57%), and parents themselves having a pet growing up and enjoying it (39%). Three in ten parents (30%) say it is very important to have a pet to provide protection for the family, and that their child wants a pet (31%).

In families that do not have pets, parents' top reasons rated as very important not to have a pet include: hassle of owning a pet (62%), family member with pet allergies (55%), cost of owning a pet (48%), that their child would not be responsible (43%), and having a pet would not be safe for their child (39%).

Parents indicate that responsibility for the care of a family pet can increase as a child gets older. The most common age at which parents say it is appropriate for a child to assume responsibility is 8 years for feeding the pet, 9 years for washing/brushing or cleaning up after the pet, and 10 years for walking or exercising the pet. Among parents with a family pet, 56% say their child always takes care of pet responsibilities, while 40% said their child sometimes is responsible.

About 1 in 6 parents (18%) say they would allow their child to receive a pet as a gift; 42% say no and 40% say they might allow it. Fifteen percent of parents have given their child a pet as a gift.

• Parents' top reasons for having a family pet are fun/companionship and teaching children responsibility.
• Parents' top reasons against having a family pet are hassle, allergies, and cost.
• Only 1 in 6 parents would allow their child to receive a pet as a gift.

Implications

Most families at some point go through the process of deciding whether or not to get a pet. This Mott Poll found that there are a lot of issues parents find important in evaluating if and when a pet is right for their child.

Parents endorsed many potential advantages to their child in having a pet. Among these are the benefits of teaching their child a sense of responsibility. Caring for a pet can help kids learn the importance of being dependable in taking care of another living being. Pets can teach children valuable life lessons like reliability, trust, compassion, respect and patience.

However, the decision to have a pet needs to be weighed carefully. When thinking of which pet to add, parents should pick one that fits the lifestyle of the family. A fish or turtle will require less playtime than a cat or dog. If the family travels a lot, an animal that can be left at home with minimal care would be a good choice. Families that want to include a pet in active play or long walks might find a dog to be a perfect fit. If a family member has allergies, parents should choose pets that have minimal hair or dander.

Before getting a family pet, parents will want to consider the extent to which they expect children to have responsibility for the pet's care. An especially important consideration is what happens when the "newness" wears off or a puppy/kitten gets older. Some children may lose interest and not want to care for the pet over time.

Before bringing home a new pet, parents should discuss with their child the specifics of what their responsibilities will be. Pets require food, grooming, and exercise; the pet's cage, pen or other environment requires regular cleaning and upkeep. No matter how committed their child may seem at the time of getting a pet, parents will have to consider themselves to be the backup plan if their child cannot or does not continue to care for the pet over time.

It is also important for parents to have realistic expectations regarding how much children at different ages can reasonably be expected to contribute to the care of a pet. Most experts believe that children over 5 years old can begin to take on developmentally appropriate responsibilities with regard to the care of a pet, with parental supervision. Children under the age of 10 should not be expected to take care of a pet complete on their own.

Safety was mentioned by parents in this Mott Poll as both a reason for and against having a family pet. On one hand, dogs may deter intruders by barking, and often can be trained to be protective of children in the family. However, some dogs can be aggressive with little warning, resulting in injuries and even death to children. Parents who are considering a dog as a family pet may want to consult with a veterinarian or other expert to find out which breeds are appropriate for children. For the safety of both the child and the pet, children under the age of 4 should be supervised with pets at all times.

Only 1 in 6 parents in this Mott Poll would allow their child to receive a pet as a gift. There is a long tradition of giving pets as gifts for special occasions, but animal shelters are filled with "former pets" where a child either lost interest or did not have the ability to care for it responsibly. Individuals contemplating giving a pet as a gift to a child should be sure to talk with parents first, to make sure the parents agree that the child is ready for the responsibility of having a pet, and that the parent is willing to help. Parents may want to steer the gift-giver toward a pet whose cost and burden of care fits with the family's lifestyle. Surprising a child with the gift of a pet is unfair to the animal, the child, and the parents.

Data Source & Methods

This report presents findings from a nationally representative household survey conducted exclusively by Ipsos Public Affairs, LLC (Ipsos) for C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital. The survey was administered in August 2019 to a randomly selected, stratified group of adults who were parents of at least one child age 0-18 years living in their household (n=2,004). Adults were selected from Ipsos’s web-enabled KnowledgePanel® that closely resembles the U.S. population. The sample was subsequently weighted to reflect population figures from the Census Bureau. The survey completion rate was 60% among panel members contacted to participate. This report is based on responses from 1,712 parents who had at least one child age 5-18 years. The margin of error for results presented in this report is ±2 to 6 percentage points.

Findings from the C.S. Mott Children's Hospital National Poll on Children's Health do not represent the opinions of the University of Michigan. The University of Michigan reserves all rights over this material.

Freed GL, Singer DC, Schultz SL, Gebremariam A, Clark SJ. Family pets: Pros and cons for kids. C.S. Mott Children's Hospital National Poll on Children's Health, University of Michigan. Vol 35, Issue 3, December 2019. Available at:  https://mottpoll.org/reports/family-pets-pros-and-cons-kids .

Home / Essay Samples / Life / House / Pros And Cons Of Owning A Household Pet

Pros And Cons Of Owning A Household Pet

• Category: Life
• Topic: House , Pets

Pages: 3 (1492 words)

Views: 5644

• Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Empathy Essays

Inspiration Essays

Courage Essays

Responsibility Essays

Fear Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->