Capital Punishment and Controlling Violent Crime

The response presents a clear overall position that capital punishment is essential and gives some relevant supporting examples, but the argument is only partially developed, repetitive, and at points unclear about how examples support the claim.

There is a discernible progression across paragraphs with some linking devices, but cohesion is often mechanical or faulty, and ideas recur without clear logical expansion between sentences.

Vocabulary is adequate for the topic but limited in range, with repeated simple wording and frequent spelling errors such as 'controle', 'deffinetly', and 'penality' that reduce precision.

Basic sentence forms are attempted but frequently faulty, with errors in subject-verb agreement, articles, tense, and clause structure that sometimes strain the reader although the main meaning is generally recoverable.

The position is stated clearly and maintained throughout, with relevant main ideas on deterrence and public trust, though development is uneven and the rape example is generalised rather than fully elaborated.

Progression is broadly clear, but cohesion depends heavily on repeated 'so' and some misused or mechanical linking, with occasional fragments weakening paragraph flow.

There is an adequate range of topic-related vocabulary such as deter, culprits, and law and order, but noticeable word-choice errors like 'abdominal activity' and awkward collocations reduce precision.

A mix of structures is attempted, but frequent sentence fragments, comma splices, and agreement errors limit control and occasionally impede clarity.

The response presents a clear partial-agreement position, addresses both sides of the deterrence argument, and reaches a relevant qualified conclusion, though some ideas such as ghost guns are only loosely tied to the question and development is uneven.

The essay follows a broadly logical progression with paragraphing and linking devices, but connections between ideas are sometimes mechanical or unclear, and some sentences pack loosely related points together.

There is an adequate range of vocabulary with some apt phrases and idioms, though accuracy is limited by misspellings such as 'penalities', 'assualt', 'unexcepted', and 'mak', and some word choices are imprecise.

A mix of simple and complex sentence forms is used with reasonable flexibility, but frequent errors in articles, capitalization, agreement, and preposition use reduce overall grammatical accuracy.

The response presents a clear qualified position agreeing with the opinion, develops the deterrence argument with a concrete example, and adds a relevant limitation about premeditated crimes, though the introduction digresses before addressing the task.

Progression is generally clear within each paragraph, but cohesion is somewhat mechanical, with abrupt opening linkers such as 'But there is also a limit' and an informal transition style that weakens logical flow.

The range of vocabulary is adequate for the topic, including items like 'premeditation', 'penalty reductions' and 'delinquents', with generally appropriate word choice, though the register is sometimes too informal and some collocations are imprecise.

A mix of simple and complex structures is used with some accuracy, but frequent slips such as 'which has grown', 'helps keeping' and 'car be pronounced' and inconsistent article and tense use show only partial control.

The response addresses the question directly with a clear position and a qualified conclusion, but main ideas such as deterrence and prevention of re-offending are only partially developed and supported with vague or unverified claims.

Ideas progress logically across well-organized paragraphs with appropriate linking devices, though some points are stacked briefly rather than fully extended, and the fourth paragraph drifts into counterargument without being resolved.

Vocabulary shows good flexibility and awareness of style with terms like deter, re-offending, and a necessary evil, though some collocations are imprecise, such as controversies marred and awarded for fending off criminals.

The response uses a range of complex structures with generally good control, and errors such as faulty parallelism and slightly awkward relative constructions are minor and do not impede meaning.