Increasing Fuel Cost to Solve Environmental Problems

The position is clear and consistently maintained, with relevant main ideas and supporting examples such as hybrid cars and renewable power, though some arguments are more asserted than fully developed.

Ideas are organised into logical paragraphs with generally clear progression, but cohesion is at times mechanical and repetition, including the duplicated phrase 'in energy', weakens flow locally.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible for the topic with appropriate items like 'greenhouse gas emissions' and 'alternative resources', despite occasional awkward collocations such as 'increasing the fuel expense'.

A variety of complex structures, including conditionals and relative clauses, is used with generally good control; errors are minor and rarely impede meaning.

The response presents a clear position throughout, develops main ideas against the fuel-price proposal and for alternatives, though it treats the broad topic of environmental problems mainly as traffic and pollution, which slightly narrows full coverage.

Paragraphing is logical, progression is clear, and cohesive devices such as referencing and linking phrases are used flexibly with only minor mechanical tendencies.

Vocabulary shows good range and some precision, but occasional awkward or inaccurate collocations like 'time efficience' and 'inflating the price of petroleum' slightly reduce precision.

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

The response presents a clear position throughout, addresses the extent of agreement, and supports main ideas with relevant examples, though development is somewhat general and scope focuses mainly on transport emissions.

Ideas are logically organised in clear paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices used naturally, producing a mostly seamless progression.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise for the topic, with less common items such as 'greenhouse gas emissions' and 'long-term sustainability' used appropriately, though occasional phrasing remains conventional.

A wide range of sentence structures, including conditionals and concession clauses, is used with good control and generally strong accuracy.

The response addresses the question directly, maintains a clear position throughout, and develops both the opposing view and the writer's stance with relevant explanation, though examples remain generalized rather than extended.

Ideas are logically organized across clear paragraphs with effective linking devices and progression, though some transitions and referential links are occasionally mechanical or slightly strained.

There is a wide range of less common vocabulary used with some flexibility and awareness of style, though occasional imprecise or awkward collocations slightly reduce precision.

A variety of complex structures is used with good flexibility and most sentences are error-free, with only occasional slips in phrasing and article use that do not impede communication.

The position is clear and consistently maintained with relevant main ideas and a supporting example, but the response is 45 words under the minimum length, so some ideas receive only limited development.

Ideas are logically organised into clear paragraphs with effective linking devices and a natural progression from disagreement to alternatives and conclusion.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise for the topic, with appropriate collocations such as 'disproportionately affect', 'unintended economic consequences', and 'sustainable or fair solution'.

A variety of complex structures is used with good control, including concessive clauses and relative constructions, and errors are rare and non-impeding.