Laws on Nutritious Food vs Personal Choice

Both views are addressed and a position is given, but ideas are unevenly developed and the reasoning, such as the confusing claim about being forced to eat anything, only partially supports the opinion.

The response has a recognisable four-paragraph structure with linking devices, though cohesion is often mechanical and progression within paragraphs is at times unclear.

There is an adequate range of vocabulary with some attempts at less common items, but awkward and inaccurate usage, such as 'take shelter of supplements' and 'alot', reduces precision.

A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, but frequent errors in agreement, articles, and sentence construction, while generally not blocking meaning, are noticeable and recurring.

Both views are discussed with relevant explanation and examples, and a clear position favouring a combined approach is presented, developed, and reiterated in the conclusion.

The essay progresses logically through clear paragraphing and linking devices, though some referencing and connectors are mechanical and slightly overused.

Vocabulary is generally adequate for the topic with some appropriate collocations, but it is repetitive and formulaic in places, limiting precision and range.

A variety of sentence structures, including complex forms, is used with good control, and errors are rare and non-impeding.

The response addresses all parts of the task, discussing both views with a clear opinion that is developed and supported with relevant examples, though some ideas, such as the link between dietary control and social unrest, could be extended further.

Ideas are organised logically across clear paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices, and progression is generally easy to follow, despite occasional slightly mechanical linking such as 'therefore, decreasing'.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and mostly precise, with terms like 'impose a levy', 'better-informed decisions', and 'public health gains', though a few awkward or imprecise phrases appear.

A variety of complex sentence structures is used with generally good control, and most errors, such as subject-verb disagreement and omissions of articles, are minor and do not impede understanding.

The essay discusses both views and favours education over compulsory dietary rules. However, the introduction's broad rejection of laws needs qualification to accommodate the later support for bans and taxes, and the claims about enforcement and educational effectiveness need more specific support.

Progression is logical across five clear paragraphs, with linking devices such as 'on the one hand' and 'in this regard'. Some transitions are mechanical, while references such as 'forcing them' and 'ensure it' in the conclusion need greater precision.

Topic-related vocabulary includes 'preservatives', 'stringent laws' and 'responsible adults'. However, expressions such as 'nutritional food', 'food quality that citizens intake' and 'youth students' are awkward or imprecise; specifying the risks of unhealthy eating would also clarify the campaign's message.

The essay uses complex sentences, conditionals and relative clauses with generally good control. Local weaknesses include subject–verb agreement in the opening, missing punctuation after the long 'no matter' clause and the awkward construction 'adults to follow'. These rarely prevent understanding.