Private Companies Funding Scientific Research

The position is clear and consistently maintained, with main ideas about transparency, accountability, funding capacity, and bias developed through explanation and a relevant example, though the conclusion is somewhat loosely tied to the weighing of advantages and disadvantages.

Ideas progress logically across well-managed paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices, although linking like 'In addition' is occasionally repeated or used imprecisely.

Vocabulary is flexible and often precise, with less common items such as 'plethora', 'pivotal', and 'staggering', alongside occasional awkward or slightly unnatural collocations.

A variety of complex structures is used with reasonable control, but recurring errors in construction, such as 'Used to predominantly take place... at its heart' and 'as well as to draw', reduce overall accuracy.

The response addresses all parts of the question with a clear position that drawbacks outweigh advantages, supported by developed main ideas, though the slightly short length and limited depth of support keep it from a higher band.

Ideas are organised logically into clear paragraphs with effective linking devices such as furthermore, consequently, and on the one hand, and progression within paragraphs is generally smooth.

The response uses an adequate range of topic-related vocabulary such as manipulated, risk-takers, and profit-driven, but noticeable repetition of research and researches and some imprecise phrasing reduce precision.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, and errors such as their researches and more well-paid are minor and do not impede communication.

The position is clear and main ideas are developed with relevant examples, but the response engages with the disadvantages only superficially, so the task is addressed incompletely.

Ideas progress logically across well-organised paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices used naturally, though the second argument slightly overlaps with the first.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as 'scientific breakthroughs' and 'wasteful expenses', and only minor imprecision.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, and occasional awkward constructions such as 'yet still being able' do not impede meaning.

The position is clear and consistently maintained, both advantages are developed with relevant supporting examples, and the conditional disadvantage is addressed, though some claims are slightly overstated.

Ideas are organised logically with cohesive devices and clear progression, but a sentence split across a paragraph break and occasional imprecise linking slightly disrupt the flow.

There is a good range of topic-related vocabulary and idiomatic expression, with occasional imprecision such as 'keep check on' and 'leaps and bounds in preliminary trials' that does not impede meaning.

Complex structures are used with generally good control, but errors in noun forms and possessives recur. Examples include "red tapes" and "spendings" where uncountable forms are needed, and "it’s one of a kind reusable rocket propellers", where "its" is the required possessive form.

Both sides of the question are addressed with relevant developed ideas, but the position reverses between the introduction and the body and conclusion, making the overall stance inconsistent.

Ideas progress logically within well-managed paragraphs, supported by a range of cohesive devices, though some linking is at times mechanical.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and mostly precise, with some natural collocations alongside occasional awkward or imprecise phrasing.

A variety of complex sentence structures is used with generally good control, and most errors are minor and do not impede understanding.