Mandatory Childhood Vaccination vs Parental Choice

The position in favour of legally requiring immunisation is eventually stated and a supporting measure is proposed, but most of the response addresses general parental care rather than the question, leaving ideas only partially developed and relevantly supported.

Ideas are arranged into paragraphs but progression is often unclear because general remarks about parenting and health are not linked to the vaccination issue, and cohesive devices such as 'That's why' and 'because of that' connect ideas imprecisely.

Vocabulary shows some attempt at less common items but includes frequent inappropriate choices, such as 'threatening creatures', 'it must be a scandal', 'another variant could not be perceptible' and 'immunity system', which limit precision of meaning.

A limited range of sentence structures is attempted, but frequent errors, including 'an aid of protection', 'their immunity system is just started', 'the body will destroy' and 'pay attentions', regularly obscure meaning in places.

The response maintains a clear position that immunisation should be compulsory and develops supporting reasons about children’s protection and government assistance. It does not develop a separate parental-choice argument. Some supporting claims are broad or insufficiently explained, reducing the depth of the reasoning.

Progression is generally clear across the paragraphs, but cohesive devices are at times mechanical or misused, as in 'By the way' and 'Namely', which weakens the flow of the argument.

There is sufficient range for the argument, but accuracy is limited by unnatural collocations such as 'bulk and vital role', 'make something special for that', and 'should have fatal results', which reduce precision.

A mix of complex structures is attempted, including relative clauses and conditionals, but frequent errors such as 'children who are less than 6 or 7 age' and a sentence fragment beginning with 'Because' show only adequate grammatical control.

The essay fully addresses the question with a clear position favouring compulsory vaccination, develops main ideas on health protection and economic benefits, and supports them with relevant examples, though some claims are asserted rather than fully substantiated.

Ideas progress logically across clear paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices, though some linking is mechanical and transitions within sentences occasionally feel forced.

There is a wide vocabulary with attempted less common items, but frequent inaccurate or unnatural usage, such as 'frailing and plummeting health', 'mutated strand', and 'prophylactic processes', reduces precision and occasionally obscures meaning.

A variety of complex structures, including relative clauses, conditionals, and subordination, is used flexibly, with errors that are occasional and generally do not impede understanding.

The response addresses both sides of the question, presents a clear position throughout, and supports main ideas with relevant examples, though the response is 21 words below the minimum length, limiting full development.

Ideas progress logically across well-managed paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices such as 'firstly', 'moreover', and 'for instance', used mostly naturally.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, with effective use of topic-related items like 'parental autonomy', 'hesitancy', and 'coercion', though some phrasing is slightly formulaic.

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

The response clearly supports compulsory immunisation and develops relevant public-health and child-protection arguments. However, it could explain more fully why those benefits justify legal compulsion, and the paragraph on parental concerns mainly discusses safety rather than the right to choose.

Ideas progress logically across clearly organised paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices used naturally, though some links remain slightly mechanical.

The response uses a broad vocabulary flexibly, including precise items like herd immunity, fatalities, and eradication, with only minor awkward phrasing.

A wide range of complex structures is used with generally good control, but occasional wordiness and awkward constructions such as the layered relative clauses in the safety paragraph reduce fluency.

The response addresses the task directly with a clear position against legal compulsion, and ideas are developed across relevant points, though support for some claims remains general rather than evidence-based.

Paragraphing is logical and progression is clear with effective linking devices, although some transitions between claims, such as the leap from statistics to individual rights, could be more fully signposted.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as 'mass immunisation programmes', 'potentially harmful practice', and 'vulnerable society', used with only rare lapses in appropriacy.

A wide range of structures, including conditionals, rhetorical questions, and relative clauses, is handled with flexibility and accuracy, with errors being rare and non-impeding.

The response addresses both sides of the question directly, presents a clear and consistent position that immunisation should be obligatory, and supports it with relevant reasoning and examples, though development is occasionally brief.

Ideas progress logically through cohesive paragraphs with effective use of linking devices and clear referencing, sustaining a coherent overall argument.

The response uses a good range of precise topic-related vocabulary such as 'eradicated', 'immunity', and 'repercussions' with mostly natural collocation and only minor imprecision.

A wide range of complex sentence structures, including conditionals and relative clauses, is used flexibly and accurately with only rare minor errors.