University Students Studying Additional Subjects vs Main Subjects Only

Both views are addressed and a position is stated, but ideas are only partially developed and the argument in places drifts from the university context, so the task is covered relevantly yet unevenly.

There is a visible overall progression with basic linking devices, but cohesion is often mechanical and some paragraphs progress through loosely connected or abrupt statements.

Vocabulary is adequate for the message but limited in range, with noticeable inaccuracy and awkward phrasing such as 'give all their minds' and 'present yourself from a good side'.

A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, but frequent errors, including fragments beginning with 'Because' and subject-verb mistakes like 'every students', reduce accuracy and sometimes strain readability.

Both views are addressed with relevant explanation and examples, but the stated opinion is partially developed and the final view paragraph drifts into an unclear point about extra-curricular activities.

Paragraphing is logical and progression is generally clear, with some effective linking, though cohesion weakens in the opinion paragraph and a few connectors are used imprecisely.

There is an adequate range of topic-related vocabulary such as 'specialisation', 'transferable skills' and 'expertise', but spelling errors and imprecise phrasing like 'get harm' and 'regarding to employment' reduce accuracy.

A mix of complex structures is attempted, but errors are frequent, including a comma splice, faulty prepositions such as 'time to unrelated subjects', and missing auxiliary verbs, though meaning generally remains clear.

Both views are addressed with relevant examples and a clear, though somewhat formulaic, opinion favouring balance, while idea development is occasionally loose or imprecise.

Paragraphing is logical and cohesive devices such as 'on the one hand' and 'therefore' are used, but progression within sentences can be strained and referencing sometimes unclear.

There is adequate range with attempts at less common vocabulary, yet frequent inaccuracies like 'main principles', 'diversed', and 'a prove' reduce precision.

A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, but repeated errors in agreement, article use, and verb forms limit accuracy while meaning stays mostly clear.

The response addresses both views, presents a clear opinion, and supports each position with relevant examples, though some ideas remain somewhat generalized rather than fully extended.

Ideas progress logically across well-managed paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices, although the concluding paragraph reiterates earlier points somewhat repetitively.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, with phrases like 'interdisciplinary thinking' and 'well-rounded perspective,' though some repetition of wording such as 'chosen field' and 'career prospects' is noticeable.

A variety of complex structures are used with generally good control, including conditionals, relative clauses, and concessive patterns, with only minor occasional errors.

Both views are addressed, a clear position is stated in the introduction and sustained in the conclusion, and ideas are relevant, though development is somewhat limited in depth and support.

The response is logically organised with clear paragraphing and a range of cohesive devices used naturally, though progression within paragraphs relies on fairly straightforward development.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as well-rounded, unwelcome distraction, and mitigated, though some phrasing remains slightly informal or general.

A wide range of structures is used with flexibility and accuracy, including complex conditionals and relative clauses, with errors being rare and minor.

The response fully addresses the question, discusses both views with a clear position throughout, and supports each main idea with relevant examples such as computer science and medicine.

Ideas are logically organized with clear paragraphing, varied cohesive devices, and smooth progression, though transitions are at times somewhat formulaic.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, using natural collocations such as interdisciplinary skills, broadening their horizons, and deep expertise, with only minor instances of slightly general phrasing.

A wide range of structures, including complex conditionals, concessive clauses, and relative constructions, is used with strong accuracy and control.

The response addresses all parts of the task, discusses both views, and states a clear consistent position with relevant if somewhat general examples and development.

Ideas are logically organised in clear paragraphs with cohesive devices used naturally, though progression is at times formulaic rather than fully nuanced.

Vocabulary is wide, natural, and precise, with skillful use of less common items such as 'interdisciplinary learning', 'dilute their focus', and 'career readiness' and only minimal inaccuracy.

A wide range of complex structures is used with flexibility and accuracy, producing error-free sentences most of the time with only rare minor slips.