Sharing Information in Research and Business

Both views are addressed and the introduction clearly favours sharing. The financial-risk argument needs fuller explanation, and the conclusion leaves the competing concerns unresolved while using an unclear reference to “not doing so”.

The response follows a logical paragraph progression with workable cohesive devices, though linking is at times mechanical and the concluding summary oversimplifies the argument.

Vocabulary is reasonably varied and precise, including items such as 'competitive advantage' and 'patent issues,' with only occasional imprecise or awkward collocations.

A range of complex structures is used with generally good control, and errors are minor and rarely impede meaning.

Both views are addressed and the position is clear. The restriction argument relies on an unexplained government-collapse claim, while the conclusion does not explain how the benefits of sharing justify the preference despite the risks identified.

Ideas are organised into logical paragraphs and progression is generally clear, though the argument relies on simple pro/con sequencing and the transition between the two perspectives and the opinion is somewhat mechanical.

Vocabulary has good range, including “catastrophic consequences” and “transparency”. Precision is occasionally reduced by awkward combinations such as “substantial sectors” and the use of “a breach of” with “trade secrets”.

A variety of complex structures and subordination is used accurately across the response, with only occasional awkward or wordy constructions that do not impede meaning.

Both views and a clear personal position are presented, with relevant examples involving nuclear technology and the Internet. Some claims are overstated or underexplained, and the preference for unrestricted access does not resolve the security risk raised earlier.

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

A wide vocabulary is demonstrated with attempts at less common expressions, but some collocations are imprecise or unnatural, such as 'penetrate state security' and 'restrictions should be debarred'.

A good range of complex structures is used with flexibility, and most sentences are error-free, with only minor slips that do not impede understanding.

Both views are discussed and a clear personal position is developed with relevant supporting examples, though the response falls short of the minimum length, limiting full development.

Ideas are logically organised with clear progression, cohesive devices are used naturally, and each paragraph manages a distinct stage of the argument effectively.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as 'free dissemination' and 'hindering cooperation', showing good awareness of style and academic tone.

A wide range of structures, including complex sentences and subordinate clauses, is used with flexibility and generally strong accuracy, with errors rare and non-impeding.

Both views are addressed with developed, relevant examples and a clear personal position, though the contradictory final sentence weakens the overall position at the close.

Ideas progress logically across well-structured paragraphs with effective linking devices, although referencing is occasionally mechanical.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible for the topic with natural collocations like 'compromising the state's sovereignty', despite some mildly awkward phrasing such as 'for their business gains'.

A good range of complex structures is used with generally reliable control, marred only by occasional agreement errors such as 'information... when they are properly utilised'.

Both views are addressed with relevant, developed ideas and a clear, balanced personal opinion, though support for the restricting view is somewhat thinner than for sharing.

Ideas progress logically through the debate, benefits, limits and conclusion, with generally natural linking. The lengthy sentence combining peer review and scientific collaboration could separate those mechanisms more clearly.

Vocabulary is precise and flexible, featuring natural collocations like 'underpinned by', 'economic competitiveness' and 'incentive to develop intellectual property'.

A wide range of structures, including complex conditionals and relative clauses, is used with strong control and only rare minor slips.

The response addresses all parts of the task, presents a clear position throughout, and supports main ideas with relevant explanation and an appropriate example, though development is somewhat brief in places and the response falls just under the expected length.

Ideas are organised logically across clear paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices used naturally, although transitions occasionally feel mechanical and progression within paragraphs is sometimes compressed.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, with good use of topic-appropriate items such as 'proprietary strategies', 'transparency', and 'competitive edge', though some phrasing is formulaic and precise connotation is not always sustained.

A variety of complex structures, including conditionals and relative clauses, is used with good flexibility and generally strong accuracy, with only occasional minor errors or awkward constructions that do not impede meaning.