Global Scenery Becoming Similar Nowadays

The response addresses the two questions in form only, but the causes offered (government responsibility, tuition fees abroad) do not explain why places look similar, and arguments such as the Rajasthan example are unclear or irrelevant, leaving the position barely supported.

Paragraph organisation exists, but progression within paragraphs is frequently confusing, with faulty logic chains, abrupt example links, and referencing that does not clearly connect ideas.

There is some formulaic vocabulary such as 'first and foremost' and 'burning question of the day', but word choice is often inaccurate or unnatural, including 'opine', 'deep pockets is transferring', and the repeated use of 'scenario' where the intended meaning is unclear.

Sentence structures are limited and error-prone, with frequent problems in articles, agreement, tense, and fragments such as 'Because the scenario of the Rajasthan is the same from decades ago', which regularly impede understanding.

The response addresses both questions with a clear position and relevant, personalised support, but the advantages side of the comparison is only briefly asserted rather than genuinely developed.

Ideas follow a recognisable sequence from causes to evaluation and conclusion, with useful linking expressions. However, the entire essay is presented as one paragraph, obscuring those stages, and references such as 'it' can blur the distinction between globalisation and similar destinations.

Vocabulary is flexible and largely precise, with natural collocations like 'upsurge in popularity' and 'sweeping trend', marred only by occasional awkward choices such as 'treasurable'.

A wide range of sentence structures, including complex and conditional forms, is used with generally good control, though a few constructions like 'can be witnessed to have' are unidiomatic.

The essay addresses both questions and clearly favours the advantages. Globalisation is identified as a cause, but its effect on visible surroundings needs fuller explanation; the proposed social benefits rely on broad causal claims rather than sufficiently developed support.

Ideas progress logically across clear paragraphs with effective use of referencing and connectors, although cohesion is occasionally mechanical and the final argument drifts from the central line of reasoning.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as 'global village' and 'cultural barriers', alongside occasional awkward or overquoted phrasing.

The essay uses varied complex sentences and relative clauses, generally intelligibly. Control is uneven in the past counterfactual conditional and in punctuation, including the comma splice in the conclusion and the interrupted clause about cultural barriers.

Both questions are answered with a clear position, relevant causes, and supported examples, though some ideas are developed at a general level.

Paragraphing is logical and cohesive devices are used naturally, with progression that is clear throughout, though some cohesion relies on repeated linking phrases.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, including topic-specific terms such as homogenization and standardisation and the natural collocation cultural diversity. There is little awkwardness, although some expressions could make relationships more explicit.

A wide range of grammatical structures is used with flexibility and control, and errors are rare and non-impeding.