Advantages and Disadvantages of Cycling as Main Transport

Both views are discussed and a clear opinion is presented with relevant, though somewhat general, support; the response is 16 words below the 250-word minimum, which limits full task achievement.

The essay is logically organised with clear paragraphing, cohesive devices used naturally, and smooth progression between ideas across all stages.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, with good use of topic-related items such as emissions, infrastructure, and cost-effective, alongside only rare minor inaccuracy.

A wide range of sentence structures is used with generally good control, including complex forms and appropriate subordination, with only occasional minor errors.

Both views are addressed with relevant, extended ideas and a clear opinion in the conclusion, though the advantage section is more developed than the disadvantage side and the introduction briefly digresses from the task.

The essay progresses logically across well-organised paragraphs with generally appropriate cohesive devices, but some links are mechanical and the transition between viewpoints could be smoother.

Vocabulary is reasonably flexible with topic-appropriate terms such as 'greenhouse gasses' and 'sedentary lifestyle', though occasional imprecise collocations like 'easier to drive' and 'outclassed by its gains' reduce precision.

Complex and simple structures convey the argument, but some forms are inaccurate. In how the usage of bicycles ... abate pollution, the singular head noun usage needs abates. A more probability is also malformed; a higher probability would express the intended comparison. They are easier to drive is grammatical, although drive is an imprecise verb for bicycles.

The response addresses both views with relevant, developed ideas and presents a clear opinion in the conclusion, though the opinion is introduced only briefly rather than threaded throughout the argument.

Ideas are organized logically into clear paragraphs with a recognizable progression, but cohesive devices such as Firstly, Secondly, Lastly, and repeated Further are somewhat mechanical and overused.

There is a wide and ambitious range of vocabulary with some natural sophistication, though imprecise collocations such as depreciate the symptoms and imperils people to occasionally reduce naturalness.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good flexibility and accuracy, with only occasional minor slips such as it is a largely an economical means that do not impede understanding.

Both views are fully addressed with a clear, consistent opinion that advantages outweigh disadvantages, and each main point is supported with relevant explanation and examples.

The essay progresses logically through clearly organised paragraphs with well-managed cohesive devices, though linking is at times slightly mechanical in style.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, featuring natural academic collocations and topic-specific terms with only rare, minor inaccuracy or awkwardness.

A wide range of sentence structures is used accurately with strong control of complex forms; occasional minor errors do not impede communication.

The response addresses both views fully, states a clear and consistent position, and develops each main idea with relevant explanation, though development remains somewhat general without specific examples.

The essay is logically organised with clear paragraphing and a range of cohesive devices, but sequencing is at times mechanical with predictable linkers such as on the one hand and moreover.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with apt phrases like zero-emission mode of transport and inadequate cycling infrastructure, though usage is at times formulaic rather than stylistically sophisticated.

A wide range of complex structures is used with strong control and accuracy, including well-managed subordinate clauses and concessive constructions, with only minor inflexibility in sentence variety.