Negative Impact of Advertising on People's Lives

The response addresses the topic and offers supporting ideas, but the position shifts from opposing advertising in the introduction to rejecting its negative impact in the conclusion, and key claims are stated rather than fully developed.

Paragraphing is sensible and progression is broadly clear, but cohesion is at times mechanical and some internal logic, such as the side-effects paragraph, does not clearly support the stated argument.

Vocabulary is adequate for the topic with some appropriate collocations, though expressions like 'the lion part' and 'most flourished field of employments' show imprecision and limited flexibility.

A mix of sentence types is attempted, but frequent tense, agreement, and article errors, such as 'promotions played' and 'Two third of our population had availed', reduce overall grammatical accuracy.

The essay addresses the question directly with a clear qualified position, well-developed main ideas, and relevant examples, but falls 35 words short of the minimum length, leaving some points lightly developed.

Ideas progress logically through clearly organised paragraphs with appropriate cohesive devices, and the argument follows a coherent structure with an effective conclusion.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural academic collocations such as 'undue importance' and 'media-savvy', though occasional phrases show slight generality rather than precision.

A range of sentence structures is used accurately, including concessive clauses, relative clauses and participial constructions. Grammatical control is strong and meaning remains clear throughout the response.

The response offers a qualified position and relevant explanations of advertising’s harms and benefits. However, rejecting solely negative effects narrows the prompt’s claim, and some benefits need a clearer link to people’s lives and more specific development.

Ideas are logically organised into clear paragraph functions with a range of cohesive devices used naturally, and progression throughout is generally seamless, with only occasional slightly formulaic sequencing.

A wide and precise vocabulary is deployed flexibly, including natural collocations such as bombardment, exploit vulnerabilities, and brought to the fore, with only rare lapses in natural usage.

A wide range of complex structures, including relative and concessive clauses, is used with good flexibility and general accuracy, with only minor errors such as subject-verb agreement in the accumulation of material possessions and products take precedence.

The response fully addresses the task with a clear position of firm agreement, well-developed main ideas, and relevant support, though some points are extended less thoroughly than others.

Ideas progress logically across clearly organized paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices, although repeated reliance on linkers such as 'furthermore' shows slightly mechanical cohesion.

The response demonstrates a wide vocabulary range, including “ubiquitous”, “materialistic values” and “infringing upon our privacy”. Some combinations, particularly “a perpetual chase of recent trends” and “online experience quality”, are less natural and precise.

A wide range of structures is used with flexibility and accuracy, including complex subordinate clauses and parallel constructions, with only rare, non-impeding errors.