Global Business and Cultural Contact vs National Identity

Both views are discussed with a clear personal opinion stated in the introduction and conclusion, though the second view about loss of national identity is developed more thinly and examples remain general.

Paragraphing is logical and the argument progresses recognisably, but some linking is mechanical or faulty, such as 'Whilst,' and 'Turning to other side of argument,' which weakens cohesion.

There is a sufficient range of vocabulary for the topic, including phrases like 'utmost importance' and 'national identities,' with some awkward or imprecise word choices and occasional errors in countability.

A mix of simple and complex structures is used, but frequent errors in articles, sentence fragments, punctuation, and constructions like 'has impact that is more positive' reduce accuracy and occasionally obscure meaning.

The response addresses both views clearly, supports each with relevant development and examples, and presents a consistent personal opinion with a concluding recommendation.

Ideas progress logically across well-managed paragraphs with effective referencing and linking devices, though some transitions such as 'Besides that' are slightly mechanical.

A sufficient range of topic-appropriate vocabulary is demonstrated, with some flexible phrasing, but occasional unnatural collocations affect precision.

A variety of complex sentence structures, including relative clauses and passive forms, is used with generally good control, with only minor non-impeding errors.

Both perspectives are addressed with relevant explanation and examples, and a clear position is presented and sustained in the conclusion, though the ideas are developed in a fairly general rather than deeply extended way.

The essay is logically organised with clear paragraphing, appropriate linking devices, and coherent progression throughout, although cohesion is at times somewhat formulaic.

There is a good range of vocabulary with some flexibility and less common items such as homogenization and erosion of national identities, with only occasional imprecision like trade facilities.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control and frequent error-free sentences. There is an error in "some concerns that", which lacks the intended verb construction; most other clauses, including the final sentence, are grammatically complete.

The response addresses all parts of the task, presents both perspectives with relevant support, and states a clear though somewhat generalized opinion, consistent with a clear and adequately developed position.

Ideas are logically organized with clear paragraphing and a range of cohesive devices, though some linking is slightly formulaic and the progression is clear rather than fully sustained.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as 'cross-cultural understanding' and 'erosion of their distinct cultural practices', with only occasional repetition like 'influential nations'.

A variety of complex structures are used with good accuracy and control, with only minor slips such as subject-verb agreement in 'contact between nations bring'.

The response addresses both views fully, presents a clear personal position in the introduction and conclusion, and supports each side with developed and relevant examples such as trade reducing poverty and westernisation eroding traditions.

Ideas are organised into logical paragraphs with clear progression and a range of cohesive devices, though linking is at times mechanical and phrases such as 'according to them' are repeated.

Vocabulary is sufficiently wide and mostly precise for flexible discussion of globalisation and identity, with occasional awkward collocations and slips such as 'minor country' and 'small county'.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, but frequent minor errors in agreement, article use, and phrasing, such as 'the positive outcome ... are immense', slightly reduce accuracy.

The response addresses both views thoroughly, presents a clear personal opinion throughout, and develops main ideas with relevant explanation and a concrete example, though a few points remain somewhat general.

Ideas progress logically across well-managed paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices, although referencing is occasionally awkward, as in the vague opener 'In this'.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible for the topic with some apt phrases like 'autarky' and 'counterproductive', but imprecise collocations such as 'popular for rice crops' and 'believe in its positivity' reduce precision.

A variety of complex structures, including conditionals and relative clauses, are used with good control, with only occasional errors or awkward phrasing that do not impede communication.

The response addresses both views with a clear position, well-developed main ideas, and relevant supporting explanation and examples throughout.

Ideas progress logically across clearly organized paragraphs with varied cohesive devices, though some linking is slightly mechanical.

Vocabulary shows good range and precision for the topic, with occasional awkward collocations such as 'knowledge bank' and 'multinational corporates'.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, despite subject-verb agreement errors and occasional faulty constructions.