Companies Providing Sports and Social Facilities to Local Communities

The response supports company contributions and offers benefits for both residents and businesses, but the extent of agreement with provision by all companies is unclear. Some examples drift towards general infrastructure, and the financial qualification needs development.

The community/company paragraph plan is easy to follow, but some transitions are mechanical. The separate financial-stability paragraph introduces a major qualification without connecting it fully to the final position.

There are attempts at less common vocabulary like 'affluent', 'goodwill', and 'efficacious', but imprecise collocations such as 'core prospective', 'advert promotions', and 'get visible support' limit flexibility and accuracy.

Complex sentences, relative clauses and conditionals are attempted with some success. Errors include the missing preposition in the locality clause and unnecessary articles, while several other awkward expressions are lexical rather than grammatical.

The essay supports community provision in general and develops benefits for residents and businesses, but it often substitutes events for facilities and does not clearly justify an obligation applying to all companies. The counterargument is dismissed rather than answered.

Ideas are organised logically across paragraphs with effective use of cohesive devices, and progression is generally clear, although the introduction and conclusion are somewhat formulaic.

There is adequate range of vocabulary with some less common items such as 'amicable' and 'in the limelight', but several expressions are imprecise or unnatural, affecting accuracy.

A mix of simple and complex sentences conveys the argument, but errors such as “people who thinks” and “will be profited” reduce accuracy. Some longer constructions also make the intended relationships harder to follow.

The response addresses the task with a clear position and relevant main ideas on both sides, but the development remains general and lightly supported, so coverage is adequate rather than full.

Ideas follow a logical sequence from benefits to affordability and government responsibility, with clear transitions between stages. However, the supplied text uses single line breaks rather than clear paragraph boundaries, and several links rely on formulaic connectors.

Vocabulary is adequate for the task but noticeably simple and repetitive in places, with limited flexibility and only occasional attempts at less common expressions.

A mix of simple and complex structures is used with generally good control, but the range is restricted and sentences often follow predictable patterns, with only minor errors.

Both corporate priorities and community benefits are discussed with relevant ideas. However, the prompt’s universal scope is narrowed to large firms, and the conclusion’s distinction between encouragement and compulsion needs clearer preparation and support.

Ideas progress logically across clear paragraphs with effective cohesive devices, though a few linkers such as 'Initially' and 'furthermore' are slightly mechanically applied.

A good range of topic-related vocabulary is used with flexibility, including phrases like 'ethical obligation' and 'sparking economic growth', with only occasional awkwardness such as 'a frivolous idea'.

A variety of complex structures, including relative clauses and conditionals, is handled with generally good accuracy, with only minor errors and punctuation slips that do not impede meaning.

The response clearly supports corporate contributions and explains benefits to residents and companies. However, it narrows all companies to large firms, and its examples of races, transport and corporate responsibility do not consistently establish provision of sports and social facilities.

Ideas progress logically across cohesive paragraphs with clear linking, although some transitions feel mechanical and formulaic.

A wide range of vocabulary is deployed with some ambition and precision, but phrases such as 'can be proven as a win-win situation' and 'athletics' show occasional awkward or inaccurate usage.

Complex sentences show a useful range, but control is uneven: the appositive after “Cognizant” lacks a closing comma, the service list needs clearer coordination, and the final sentence has unclear reference and mismatched forms.

The essay directly addresses the proposed obligation and consistently rejects a requirement for all companies. Relevant reasons are supported with explanation, though the community-project example is broad and the link from public leadership to rejecting a universal mandate needs further development.

Ideas progress logically across clear paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices used naturally, though linking is occasionally formulaic.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with good use of topic-related terms and idiomatic phrasing such as 'cogent arguments' and 'corporate social responsibility'.

A wide range of structures is used with generally good control, including complex sentences and appropriate tense use, with only minor slips.

Two relevant benefits are developed through examples, but the response narrows all companies to large corporations and shifts from agreement to encouragement. Explicitly defining this qualification would make the extent of agreement clearer; some causal claims also need fuller explanation.

The argument has a logical sequence, signalled by Firstly, Secondly and In conclusion. However, these stages are separated only by single line breaks in the supplied text, so clearer paragraph boundaries would improve presentation; the time-pressure argument also needs a stronger link to facility provision.

A wide range of less common vocabulary is used with generally good precision, though a few collocations such as decided benefits and promulgate a sense are slightly unnatural.

A variety of complex sentence structures is used with good flexibility and generally strong control, with only minor, non-impeding errors in punctuation and phrasing.

The response clearly supports provision by large companies and develops relevant social and health benefits, but it leaves the prompt’s requirement for all companies unanswered and does not fully justify making provision obligatory.

Ideas are logically organised with clear paragraphing, effective sequencing devices such as 'Moreover' and 'Finally', and cohesive links within paragraphs that sustain a broadly clear progression.

Vocabulary is flexible and largely precise, with natural collocations like 'social cohesion', 'sense of ownership', and 'chronic diseases', though some phrases recur without much variation.

Complex sentences, relative clauses and participial phrases are generally accurate and controlled. The main opportunities are to make some lengthy formulations more direct rather than to correct clear grammatical errors.

The position is clear and consistently maintained, with developed main ideas and a relevant, extended example, though the shift from 'all companies' to 'large corporations' is an unexamined narrowing of the task scope.

Progression is logical across clearly separated arguments. Some references and compressed sentence structures could be clearer, including “equipping them” in the conclusion and the densely packed Vietnam example.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise for the topic, using items like 'corporate social responsibility' and 'top-notch facilities', with only minor awkward collocations such as 'doing charities'.

A range of complex structures is used with generally good control, including conditionals and relative clauses, though errors in inversion and comparison occasionally affect accuracy without impeding meaning.

The position is clear and consistently maintained, with both counterarguments and supporting reasons developed and illustrated, though the focus on large, financially stable companies slightly narrows the task's reference to all companies.

Ideas progress logically across well-structured paragraphs with varied cohesive devices, although the link between the counterargument and the writer's position relies on somewhat mechanical transitions at times.

Vocabulary is flexible and generally precise, with expressions such as operational viability, social cohesion and enhanced customer loyalty used naturally. The reference to firms forming close ties with their surroundings is slightly imprecise.

Complex sentences, subordinate clauses and relative clauses are used accurately and flexibly. The trailing funded and managed phrases in the government-responsibility sentence have an awkward attachment, but meaning remains clear.

The essay states a clear position and develops relevant costs and benefits of sports provision, but does not address social facilities or fully reconcile an obligation on all companies with the financial constraints on smaller firms.

Ideas progress logically across cohesive paragraphs with skillful use of contrast and linking devices, and only minor mechanical cohesion such as an awkward participial link.

Vocabulary is wide and precise, with natural collocations like civic engagement, legal exposure, and brand loyalty used flexibly for precise meaning.

Complex sentences show considerable range, but the sequence “can cause ... and ... forcing ... and decelerating” lacks parallel verb structure. Other long constructions would benefit from clearer control.

The disagreement is consistent and supported by two relevant lines of argument, but the opening and conclusion narrow the scope to large firms, and the fairness and funding claims need more specific support.

The response is coherently organised with clear paragraphing, and a range of cohesive devices is used flexibly and accurately to achieve logical progression throughout.

A wide range of precise vocabulary is used naturally, including topic-specific terms such as 'competitive edge' and 'job satisfaction', with only rare minor slips in word choice.

A wide range of structures is used flexibly and accurately, with frequent complex sentences and effective use of participial and subordinate clauses, producing mostly error-free writing.

The essay maintains a clear position against compulsory company provision and supports government responsibility with relevant reasoning. However, its discussion centres on sports and public health, leaving the social-facilities part of the proposal largely unexplored.

Progression is logical and paragraphing is clear, with effective linking devices, though some transitions and idea development remain slightly predictable rather than fully skilful.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as safeguarding public interests and circumvent bureaucratic obstacles, and only minimal inaccuracy.

A wide range of structures is used with strong control, including complex conditionals and contrastive constructions, with rare minor slips that do not impede meaning.