Making Sugary Food and Drink Products More Expensive

The response presents a clear disagreement, addresses the question with relevant main ideas and an alternative solution, though some arguments are under-analyzed and reasoning is occasionally weak.

Progression is broadly clear with basic linking devices and paragraphing, but transitions are sometimes mechanical and idea development within paragraphs is uneven.

The response uses an adequate range of topic-related vocabulary, but imprecise or informal word choices such as 'intaking' and 'mass people' reduce accuracy and flexibility.

A mix of simple and complex structures is used, yet frequent slips such as tense errors, awkward passives, and sentence-initial conjunctions limit accuracy and range.

The response fully addresses the question with a clear, consistent position, well-developed main ideas, and relevant supporting evidence, though development is occasionally general rather than extended.

Ideas progress logically across clear paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices, although linking is at times mechanical and one paragraph is notably shorter in development.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise for the topic, with good collocations such as obesity epidemic and deterrent, alongside only occasional less natural phrasing.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, though minor slips in punctuation and agreement occur without impeding communication.

The response addresses the question directly with a clear, consistently maintained agreement position, developing relevant main ideas about health harms and price-driven behaviour change with explanation and an example, though some support remains generalised.

Ideas are organised into coherent paragraphs with logical progression and a range of cohesive devices, although occasional connectors like the sentence-initial 'And' and some repetitive links feel slightly mechanical.

Vocabulary is generally adequate for the topic with attempts at less common items like 'slow poison' and 'impose taxes', but there are noticeable imprecisions such as 'potion' for portion, 'health diseases', and 'unaffordable by mass people'.

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

The response addresses the question directly with a clear, consistent agreement position, well-developed main ideas, and relevant supporting examples, though a few statements are slightly imprecise or tangential.

Ideas progress logically across clearly sequenced paragraphs with varied cohesive devices, although one sentence disrupts the argument's internal coherence.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise for the topic, including less common items like 'levy a surcharge' and 'perilous', with occasional lapses in word choice.

A good range of sentence structures, including complex and conditional forms, is used with generally strong accuracy; errors are minor and do not impede meaning.

The response addresses all parts of the task with a clearly stated and consistently developed position, well-supported main ideas about fairness and alternative measures, though development is somewhat extended rather than deeply nuanced.

Ideas progress logically across well-organised paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices used naturally, with only minor mechanical referencing such as the repeated use of 'these types of goods'.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise for the argument, with some less common items like 'hiked' and 'affordable luxury', but repetition of phrases such as 'these types of products' limits the range.

A variety of complex structures are used with good flexibility and control, and errors are minor and rare, such as the omission in 'unfair to consumers charge more'.

The position is clearly stated and consistently maintained, with main ideas such as taste, addiction, and regressive effects developed and supported by an alternative solution, though some support remains general rather than extended.

The response is logically organised with clear paragraphing and a range of cohesive devices used naturally, although transitions are at times slightly mechanical.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as purchasing capacity, coping mechanism, and root cause, alongside only minor imprecision.

A variety of complex structures are used with generally good control, though occasional punctuation and clause-linking errors, such as faulty comma placement around linking phrases, are present.

The position is stated clearly and consistently, all parts of the task are addressed, and main ideas about pricing and healthier substitution are well developed with relevant examples such as soda taxes and free refills.

Ideas are logically organised across clear paragraphs with generally smooth progression, though cohesion sometimes depends on mechanical connectors like 'for one thing' and 'for another'.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise for the topic, with natural collocations such as 'sugar-sweetened beverages', 'free refills', and 'satisfy a craving', showing some awareness of style.

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

The position is clear and consistently maintained, all main ideas are relevant and developed with examples, though some points remain somewhat generally supported rather than fully extended.

Paragraphing is logical, sequencing is clear, and cohesive devices such as firstly, secondly, and moreover are used flexibly, with only occasional slightly mechanical linking.

Vocabulary is precise and varied, including items like cardiovascular diseases, reformulate, and punitive financial measures, though a few collocations such as meager backgrounds are imprecise.

A wide range of complex structures is used with good control, including concessive and conditional forms, with only minor, non-impeding errors.

The response presents a clear position of strong agreement, develops two main ideas with relevant supporting examples, and reaches a consistent conclusion, though it falls 7 words short of the minimum length and lacks engagement with opposing perspectives.

Ideas progress logically through clearly signposted paragraphs with effective use of cohesive devices, although the organisation is somewhat mechanical and linkers like firstly and secondly are used conventionally.

Vocabulary is appropriately varied and precise for the topic, featuring terms like consumer behavior, healthcare burden, and dietary habits, with only mild repetition of phrases such as sugary products.

A wide range of complex structures is used accurately, including conditional and relative clauses, with errors being rare and non-impeding throughout.

The response directly addresses the question with a clear, nuanced position that taxation is only marginally effective, and it develops both sides with relevant supporting examples across well-structured paragraphs.

Ideas progress logically with effective cohesive devices and clear referencing, though a few links, such as the opening framing and the transition into the final paragraph, are slightly overstated or loose.

Vocabulary is wide and precise, with natural use of items like corollary, concomitant, and engender, and only minor, non-impeding repetition such as repeated use of marginal.

A full range of complex structures is used with strong flexibility and control, including varied subordination and concise academic phrasing, with only rare minor slips.