Grange Park 1920年与今天的平面图

The response covers the key changes (fountain removed, rose garden centralised, stage replaced by an amphitheatre, café, water feature, underground car park, children's play area) with an overview of retained entrances, though a few phrases such as rose gardens being 'scattered around the periphery' are slightly imprecise.

Ideas progress logically from an overview through systematic changes, with a range of cohesive devices ('to begin with', 'meanwhile', 'besides') used flexibly, though some linking is slightly mechanical.

Vocabulary is sufficiently varied for a map comparison ('inauguration', 'layout', 'amenities', 'accommodate'), but occasional word choice errors such as 'remobilised' and 'staged' reduce precision.

The response uses a range of passive and coordinated structures, but the past tense with since then and some punctuation and phrasing need attention. These errors generally do not prevent the reader from understanding the comparisons.

The response covers the main changes with largely accurate spatial detail, including the new car-park entrance, central rose garden, amphitheatre and eastern facilities. The overview could identify the central redesign more clearly, and the different outcomes of the two western rose gardens are not explained.

Progression is logical, moving from an overview to entrances, central changes, and then remaining features, with cohesive devices such as referencing and sequencing used naturally, though a few transitions are slightly mechanical.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible for a map description, including “amphitheater”, “converted into” and “water feature”. Some choices need refinement: “constructions” is unsuitable for the building process here, and “flattened” does not fit the pond naturally.

The response uses complex sentences and passive forms with generally clear meaning. Errors include the singular subject in “Grange park have”, inconsistent capitalisation of place names and directions, and “on” rather than “in” for locations within the park’s corners.

The response provides an overview and covers most major changes. However, it incorrectly links the water feature to the former pond, omits the glasshouse and locates the car park itself where the plan only marks its entrance.

The account moves from an overview to individual changes, but all information is presented in one paragraph. Separating the overview from grouped details would make the comparison clearer; repeated “Besides” and “In details” also weaken the linking.

Vocabulary is adequate for the task with some appropriate items like 'amphitheatre' and 'relocation', yet phrases such as 'more possibilities' and 'in the right-top' show imprecision.

The response uses a range of passive and relative-clause structures, with meaning generally clear. “Both seatings” incorrectly treats seating as a countable noun, and the pond sentence becomes cumbersome through repeated coordination.

The response gives an overview and covers the major changes, including seating, rose gardens, the amphitheatre, water feature, café and play area. Some interpretations need caution: the plans show an entrance from an underground car park but no street access route, and do not establish that the former pond itself was moved.

Ideas progress logically through clear paragraphing with effective linking devices, though some referencing and cohesion, such as the opening summary sentence, could be more polished.

Vocabulary is generally flexible for map description, using words such as 'concentrated', 'upgraded' and 'formerly'. Greater precision would help in references such as 'the central park feature' and in distinguishing replacement from relocation; the confusion between 'it’s' and 'its' is a grammatical slip.

A wide range of structures is used with generally good control, including complex and comparative sentences, but occasional errors such as the doubled full stop and slightly awkward phrasing reduce consistency.