工业用地改造规划

The response presents a clear overview and covers the main changes, including new housing, communal gardens, garages and private roads. However, describing housing as expanding incorrectly implies that it already exists, and the eastern apartment and parking arrangement needs greater precision.

Ideas are logically organised by area with clear progression and a good range of cohesive devices, although occasional phrasing such as 'on arrival, residents will benefit from another apartment' slightly obscures the message.

Vocabulary is varied and generally appropriate for describing redevelopment, including “communal gardens” and “office complex”. Some collocations are less precise: gardens are described as “erected”, and “knocked down” is applied jointly to a parking space and a storage room.

A wide range of complex structures is used with control, including relative and participial constructions like 'to the north of which is an entrance', with only occasional errors in form affecting precision.

The response gives a clear overview of the conversion to residential use and identifies most existing facilities and planned housing. Accuracy is weakened by the unsupported garden access route and plural apartment buildings. It also omits the yard-to-gardens comparison and the private roads, both important parts of the redevelopment.

Ideas progress logically from an overview to the current layout and then to the planned changes, with cohesive devices like 'As per the proposed plan' and 'Additionally' supporting the flow, though some sentences are long and directional detail is slightly dense.

Vocabulary is varied and generally suitable for describing spatial change, including “bounded by”, “situated” and “slated to replace”. Precision is uneven: “double-bedroom houses” does not express the labelled number of bedrooms, while “strategically positioned” adds an unsupported evaluation of the design.

A range of structures is used accurately, including passive forms such as 'will be replaced' and 'will be substituted', relative clauses, and complex noun phrases, with errors rare and non-impeding.

The response gives a clear overview and covers most key features across both maps. The three private roads are correctly reported, but the introduction adds an unsupported year and the description invents a space-saving motive for the canteen layout. Some planned locations could be distinguished more clearly.

Ideas progress logically from a present-state paragraph to a future-plan paragraph, with effective use of referencing and spatial linking, marred only by a missing punctuation mark before 'To the left'.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise for describing location and change, showing good command of terms like 'demolished', 'earmarked for construction', and 'in the vicinity of'.

A wide range of complex structures, including relative clauses and participial phrases, is generally controlled well. A missing full stop before “To the left” creates a run-on sentence, and “newly constructed” should not be hyphenated.

The response gives a clear overview of the transformation to residential use, describes the main features of both maps and makes relevant comparisons. The broad replacement relationships are correct. Greater precision about the new internal layout would help, and the claim that workers can only enter from Chimney Road is stronger than the diagram establishes.

Ideas are logically sequenced from present to future with effective use of cohesive devices and referencing, and paragraphing supports a clear progression throughout.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise for describing change and location, with natural collocations such as 'making way for' and 'at the expense of', and only minor lapses in precision.

A wide range of structures is used, including participial clauses, inversions, and passives, with strong accuracy and only occasional minor slips.