Social Responsibilities of Businesses vs Making Money

The response agrees that businesses have social responsibilities and gives relevant reasons concerning influence, poverty and community support. These ideas are unevenly developed; the concession does not explain how to balance duties with profit, and the incomplete final sentence obscures the conclusion.

Paragraphing is logical and linking devices guide the reader, though some connections are mechanical and progression falters in the counterargument and conclusion.

There is adequate range of vocabulary with some less common items like penurious, but imprecise and awkward collocations recur throughout.

A mix of structures is attempted, yet frequent errors in agreement, articles, and verb forms regularly reduce clarity, especially near the end.

The response addresses all parts of the question, maintains a clear and consistent agreement position throughout, and supports it with relevant examples, though some ideas remain generally rather than fully developed.

Ideas are organised into recognisable paragraphs covering workers, the environment and wider social benefits. Progression is generally clear, although the move to charitable giving and the role of the paragraph beginning “However” need clearer connections.

The response uses a range of topic vocabulary, including “environmental regulations” and “infrastructure”, and attempts less common expressions. Awkward choices such as “social devoir” and “develop the environment” sometimes reduce precision.

A variety of complex structures, including concessive and relative clauses, is used with reasonable flexibility, and most sentences are error-free with only minor grammatical and punctuation slips.

The essay supports social responsibilities alongside financial goals, with relevant discussion of wages, donations and taxes. The stance becomes explicit in the body and conclusion rather than the introduction; the claim that obligations become “irrelevant” when finances are difficult needs qualification, and some support remains general.

Ideas progress logically across clearly organised paragraphs with effective cohesive devices, although a few transitions and the introductory framing feel slightly mechanical.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, with natural collocations like 'cutthroat environment' and 'accounting loopholes', alongside occasional awkward phrasing that slightly reduces precision.

A good range of complex structures, including conditionals and relative clauses, is used with flexibility and generally strong accuracy, with only minor slips such as the doubled 'only...only' construction.