Corporate Sponsorship of Sports

The response addresses both sides of the topic and gives a position, but ideas are only partially developed, somewhat confused in places, and the response falls 70 words short of the required minimum length.

There is a visible two-sided structure with some linking devices, but progression is mechanical and repetitive, and the argument does not always advance logically from one idea to the next.

The writer attempts a range of ambitious expressions such as 'new vistas of employment' and 'leaps and bounds', but these are often used inaccurately or inappropriately, and word choice errors frequently reduce clarity.

A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, but frequent errors in agreement, tense, articles, and sentence construction often impede meaning.

The response addresses both sides and gives an opinion, but the argument is largely about advertising generally rather than sports sponsorship specifically, ideas are only partly developed, and the essay falls 19 words short of the required length.

There is a visible overall progression with basic linkers and paragraphing, but cohesion is at times mechanical and some connections between sentences are illogical or abrupt.

Vocabulary is adequate for the topic, but several word choices obscure the intended meaning, including cloth trends, buy think and overweight the disadvantages. The response also shifts between advertising generally and sponsorship without consistently distinguishing the two.

Complex sentences are attempted, but grammatical errors and sentence-boundary problems are frequent. The clauses it a key part and the advantages more than disadvantages lack verbs, and several independent clauses are joined only by commas. The plural construction some of them put pressure is grammatical.

The response addresses both views and gives an opinion with relevant ideas and an example, but development is uneven and the final position is muddled and only partially clear.

The essay is organised into clear paragraphs with basic cohesive devices, though progression is at times mechanical and linkers such as 'certainly' and 'nevertheless' are misused.

Vocabulary is adequate for the task with some attempts at less common items like 'health hazardous' and 'formulating the opinion', but word choice is frequently imprecise and includes collocational errors.

A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, but frequent errors in agreement, articles, and verb forms, such as 'they will more likely to watch' and 'wine has negative on', reduce accuracy.

The response addresses all parts of the task, discusses both views and presents a clear, consistent opinion, though some ideas such as the disadvantage of interference could be extended further.

The essay is logically organised with clear paragraphing and a range of cohesive devices, although linking is at times slightly mechanical, as in the formulaic opening and conclusion.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and mostly precise, with phrases like 'mutual benefit' and 'attracting young talents', but there are occasional awkward collocations such as 'increase interference' and 'reaps advantages'.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, and errors are minor and non-impeding, though some constructions such as 'translates the tournament into a marketing event' are strained.

The response covers both views with relevant, developed ideas and a clear though somewhat qualified opinion, with adequate support rather than full extension of every point.

Ideas are logically organised across clear paragraphs with effective cohesive devices, though some linking and progression within paragraphs is slightly mechanical.

A wide range of topic-related vocabulary is used with generally good control and some precision, though occasional overuse and slightly unnatural collocations reduce flexibility.

A variety of complex sentence structures is used with generally good control, but minor awkward constructions and errors in phrasing occur without impeding meaning.

The response addresses both parts of the discussion task and presents a consistent position, though the supporting ideas are developed in a somewhat general and predictable way.

Ideas are organised into clear paragraphs with logical progression and appropriate cohesive devices, although the linking is sometimes mechanical and template-like.

The vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise for the topic, with phrases such as 'undermine the integrity' and 'commercialization', despite some reliance on repeated, formulaic expressions.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, and errors are minor and non-impeding across the response.

Both perspectives are discussed with relevant examples and a clear, consistently developed opinion is maintained throughout the response.

Ideas progress logically through clear paragraphing and effective cohesive devices, though linking is sometimes slightly mechanical.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise for the topic, with good awareness of style, though it is not especially wide-ranging.

A wide range of structures, including complex conditionals and relative clauses, is used with good control and frequent error-free sentences.

Both sides of the sponsorship question are addressed with a clear opinion, relevant real-world examples, and a nuanced conclusion, though the benefits side is developed slightly less fully than the ethics side.

Ideas progress logically across clear paragraphs with effective cohesive devices and referencing, with only occasionally mechanical linkages such as heavy reliance on transitional adverbs.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, featuring natural low-frequency items such as precipitates, morally bankrupt, and pernicious, with no noticeable inaccuracy.

A wide range of complex structures is used with generally good control, though errors such as the missing verb in this a positive situation and subject-verb agreement in guarantees slightly reduce accuracy.

The response fully addresses both views, presents a consistent and clearly stated opinion, and develops main ideas with relevant, well-explained examples.

Ideas progress logically across well-managed paragraphs with varied cohesive devices, though transitions are at times slightly formulaic.

A wide and precise vocabulary is used naturally, including apt topic-specific phrasing such as over-commercialization and sportsmanship, with only minor lapses.

A wide range of complex sentence structures is used with strong accuracy and flexibility, producing mostly error-free writing throughout.