Spending Public Money on Health Prevention Versus Treatment

The response addresses the topic and implies disagreement with neglecting ill people, but the position is not stated clearly, ideas drift into irrelevant claims about nature, and development is uneven with loosely connected examples.

There is an evident overall structure with introduction, body and conclusion, but progression is often unclear, links between ideas are mechanical, and some statements interrupt rather than advance the argument.

Vocabulary shows some range of topic-related terms, but word choice is frequently imprecise or erroneous, for example 'physic', 'this origin a great harm', and 'should have behaved well', reducing precision of meaning.

A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, but errors in verb form, agreement and sentence construction, such as 'considering' misuse and 'They should have behaved well', are frequent though meaning is often still recoverable.

The essay addresses the question with a clear position and relevant main ideas, though development is uneven and some points, such as the claim that all terminal illnesses are preventable, are overstated or loosely supported.

Ideas are arranged in a discernible progression from treatment to prevention, but linking devices like firstly, secondly, and thirdly are used mechanically and connections between sentences are sometimes unclear.

Vocabulary is adequate for the topic with some appropriate health-related terms, but there are noticeable word-choice errors and imprecise phrasing such as med save and all this terminal illness.

Sentence forms are attempted with some variety, but frequent errors in articles, relative clauses, and agreement sometimes reduce clarity and accuracy of expression.

The position is clear and both main ideas are developed with relevant personal examples, but the argument is partially uneven due to the sweeping claim that funding treatment for terminally ill patients is useless, which is asserted rather than fully reasoned.

The argument moves from an introduction to prevention and treatment examples and a conclusion, each in its own paragraph. Repeated slogans and repeated use of “Thus” make progression mechanical, and the conclusion restates rather than draws together the main ideas.

Vocabulary is adequate for the task with some topic-specific terms, but there are noticeable collocation and word-form errors such as 'more importantly', 'it is no sense', and 'terminal life'.

A mix of sentence structures is attempted, but errors are frequent, including 'done vaccinations', tense and article problems, and faulty clause construction, although meaning generally remains clear.

The response addresses the question with a clear qualified position and relevant main ideas on prevention and treatment, but the development of those ideas remains thin and partially repetitive.

Paragraphing is logical and linking devices are used throughout, though some connections are mechanical and cohesion within paragraphs is occasionally loose.

There is an adequate range of topic-related vocabulary such as 'debilitating diseases', 'awareness' and 'sanitation', with some awkward or imprecise phrasing but no serious breakdown in meaning.

A mix of simple and complex structures is used with reasonable accuracy, but recurring errors in agreement, article use and clause construction reduce overall grammatical control.

The essay develops relevant reasons for funding both prevention and treatment, with concrete examples. However, its extent of agreement is inconsistent: the introduction endorses giving prevention priority, while the conclusion declares the two equally important. Some prevention and inheritance claims also exceed the support provided.

Ideas are organised logically across clear paragraphs with effective cohesive devices, though some linking is slightly mechanical.

A sufficient range of vocabulary is used with some precision and less common items, alongside occasional slight awkwardness in word choice.

A variety of complex structures is used with good flexibility and generally accurate control, with only minor non-impeding errors.

The response addresses the task directly with a clear, consistently held position favouring prevention, and develops relevant main ideas across the essay, though some support remains general rather than fully extended.

Ideas progress logically through clear paragraphing and a range of cohesive devices, with occasional slightly mechanical or imprecise linking such as the shift into the concluding paragraph.

A wide vocabulary range is demonstrated with natural items like 'fall prey to ailments' and 'vicious cycle', though occasional awkward or inaccurate collocations such as 'relentless to conquer' and 'surpassed' reduce precision.

A variety of complex structures is used with good flexibility, and most sentences are error-free, with only occasional slips in relative clause construction and tense-adjacent phrasing that do not impede communication.

The response directly addresses the question with a clear, consistent position favoring prevention, develops both sides logically, and supports ideas with relevant examples such as obesity prevention and cancer treatment costs.

Ideas progress logically across well-organized paragraphs with effective cohesive devices like 'By contrast' and 'However', though some referencing and linking within sentences is occasionally loose.

Vocabulary is generally adequate for the topic with terms like 'cost-effective' and 'incidence of obesity', but some expressions are imprecise or awkward, such as 'frame of mind' and 'dozens of millions or billions'.

There is a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, but frequent errors such as 'What needed', 'rather on', and 'those currently being ill' reduce accuracy without blocking meaning.

A clear position favouring prevention is supported by arguments about cost and quality of life. However, the claim that nobody would need chemotherapy after adopting healthy habits overstates what prevention can achieve, and affordable healthy food is also treated too universally.

Ideas progress logically across well-organised paragraphs with a clear position, effective cohesive devices, and appropriate concluding links, with only minor mechanical use of connectors.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, including less common items such as 'incipient', 'expenditure' and 'upstream causes', with only occasional awkward collocations like 'costly hours of painful chemotherapy'.

Complex sentences and subordinate clauses are generally well controlled and the argument is easy to follow. Minor slips include the missing article in 'within financial capacity'. Some long sentences would benefit from tighter construction, but errors do not usually obscure meaning.

The essay maintains a clear preference for treatment funding and develops reasons on both sides. The obesity example supports prevention, but vaccination presented as treatment for acute illness does not support the treatment argument. The claim that health advice benefits only the already health-conscious is also too absolute.

Ideas are logically organised with clear paragraphing and cohesive devices used appropriately, although some links between claim and support, such as the vaccine example, are slightly stretched.

A wide range of vocabulary is used with flexibility and precision, including natural collocations like 'sedentary lifestyle' and 'alarming rate', with only rare imprecision.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, but occasional errors such as 'forgoed', 'individual's habits', and minor article slips are noticeable without impeding meaning.