International Tourism: Tension or Understanding

The position is clear and consistently maintained with three relevant main ideas, but development is uneven and examples sometimes drift from the tourism-and-understanding focus.

The argument moves from an introduction through three reasons to a conclusion, but the entire response is a single paragraph. Signposts make the sequence understandable, while the missing paragraph divisions and occasional loose links limit organisation.

Vocabulary is generally adequate for the topic with some appropriate collocations, though imprecise phrasing and awkward word choices recur.

A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, but errors in articles, agreement, and sentence construction appear frequently without seriously impeding meaning.

The response addresses the task with a clear nuanced position and develops supporting ideas with examples, though some arguments, such as the tourism revenue point, remain thinly developed.

The discussion moves from tensions to potential benefits and a conclusion, with signposts such as "nevertheless". However, the whole essay is one paragraph, and the shifts between guides, language and tourism income need clearer grouping.

Vocabulary is adequate for the topic with some appropriate phrasing, but errors like 'costumes' for 'customs' and 'permits to millions' show imprecision and limited flexibility at points.

A mix of simple and complex sentences is attempted, yet frequent errors in agreement, pronoun reference, and article use, such as 'the biggest industry have to feel' and 'don't understand it', reduce accuracy while meaning stays mostly clear.

The response addresses the question and develops relevant ideas on both sides, but the position is only indirectly and inconsistently signalled, and some claims are overgeneralised or thinly supported.

Progression is broadly clear with some cohesive devices, but the response lacks paragraphing and transitions between ideas are often mechanical or abrupt.

There is an adequate range of vocabulary with some attempts at less common items, though awkward collocations such as 'invest the development' and imprecise phrasing reduce precision.

A mix of simple and complex structures is used with some flexibility, but frequent errors in tense, agreement, and article use are noticeable, though meaning is mostly maintained.

The response addresses the question directly with a clear position of disagreement, well-extended main ideas, and relevant supporting examples throughout.

Ideas progress logically within the argument, but the essay reads as one continuous block with limited paragraphing and occasionally mechanical linking.

Vocabulary is generally adequate and sometimes natural for the topic, though there are imprecise collocations such as 'people have subdued' and 'brings different culture together'.

A mix of simple and complex structures is used, but errors in subject-verb agreement, articles, and comparative forms recur without seriously impeding meaning.

The essay addresses the question directly with a clear position, balanced consideration of the opposing view, and developed main ideas supported by explanation and a relevant gesture example, though some points remain briefly elaborated.

Paragraphing is logical and progression is clear throughout, with cohesive devices such as 'furthermore' and 'on the other hand' used effectively, although a few linkers like 'thus' are applied somewhat mechanically.

There is a good range of vocabulary for the topic, including 'preconceptions', 'cross-cultural', and 'foster', with generally precise usage, marred only by occasional awkward collocations like 'interracial understanding'.

The response uses a variety of complex structures, including conditionals and relative clauses, with generally good control; minor errors such as 'its contribution in removing' and inconsistent pronoun agreement do not impede communication.

The response addresses all parts of the task with a clear position sustained throughout, and main ideas are relevantly developed with support, though some points rely on generalization rather than full extension.

Ideas are logically organized into clear paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices used naturally, although occasional overuse of connectors such as 'so' and 'therefore' slightly reduces variety.

There is an adequate range of vocabulary for the topic with some less common items, but imprecise collocations and word choices such as 'sharp progression', 'fraternity', and 'coordination' limit precision.

A mix of complex and simple structures is used with reasonable flexibility, but recurring errors in prepositions and agreement, such as 'research about' and 'People from hotel or transportation industry', reduce accuracy.

The response addresses the question directly with a clear position of disagreement, develops main ideas with relevant examples, though the opposing view is acknowledged but only partly developed before the conclusion.

Progression is generally logical with clear paragraphing and linking devices, but some connections are mechanical or slightly strained, such as the abrupt shift between Venice and crime control.

Vocabulary is flexible and often precise, featuring items like 'lucrative', 'burgeoning', and 'intangible heritage', though occasional collocational awkwardness such as 'develops radically' and 'impasse' reduces precision.

A good range of complex structures is used with frequent error-free sentences, and errors such as 'which beautifully recreate' are minor and do not impede communication.

The essay fully addresses the question with a clear, consistently held position, well-developed main ideas, and relevant supporting examples such as the greeting customs comparison.

Progression is logical across clear paragraphs with appropriate cohesive devices, though sequencing and linking are at times mechanical or formulaic.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, with good awareness of collocation such as 'international goodwill' and 'bridge the cultural gap', despite occasional imprecise word choices.

A range of complex structures is used with generally good control, though frequent minor errors in agreement, articles, and verb forms such as 'Ignorance and carelessness sometimes causes' slightly reduce accuracy.

The response addresses the question directly with a clear position, concedes counterexamples fairly, and supports the argument with relevant real-world examples, though some ideas could be developed more fully.

Ideas progress logically across well-managed paragraphs with effective linking devices such as 'That being said' and 'Even though', though cohesion is occasionally slightly mechanical.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations like 'tremendous public outrage' and 'embracing cultural differences', with only rare awkwardness.

A wide range of complex structures is used with generally strong accuracy, including effective concessive clauses, with only minor errors such as spacing and agreement slips.

The response directly addresses the question with a clearly stated and consistently maintained position, developing relevant main ideas with supporting explanation and personal examples, though some points are asserted rather than fully examined.

Ideas are organised in logical paragraphs that sequence the tourist's and locals' perspectives clearly, with effective use of cohesive devices and referencing that rarely draws attention.

A wide range of precise and idiomatic vocabulary, including phrases such as hold water, alien culture, and under threat, is used flexibly and accurately with only occasional less precise wording.

A wide range of grammatical structures, including complex and conditional forms, is used with flexibility and consistent accuracy, with errors being rare and inconsequential.