投诉手机迟迟未修好的信

The response fails to cover two of the three required bullet points, since the writer neither introduces themselves nor explains the purchase and repair situation, and the refund request is stated with no supporting context, falling well below the required length.

Progression is minimal because the message jumps directly from an announcement of a faulty phone to a refund demand without any linking detail, producing very limited and unevenly connected content.

The vocabulary is relevant and appropriately formal for a complaint, including phrases like 'faulty mobile phone' and 'insist on getting a refund', but it is far too restricted in range to show flexibility.

Both main sentences contain subordinate structures: a relative clause identifies the purchase, and a conditional clause sets out the refund request. The present perfect have purchased is valid because no finished past time is specified. The very short response gives limited evidence of sustained grammatical range, and if the replacement does not arrive would express the future condition more naturally.

The letter covers all three required points from the prompt with specific detail, including the purchase date, order number, and refund condition, and maintains a consistently formal tone, though the timeline details are slightly unevenly developed.

The complaint narrative is understandable, but the entire letter is one continuous paragraph, including the salutation and closing. The purchase, fault, unsuccessful follow-up and requested remedy need separate grouping.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise for a formal complaint, with natural collocations such as 'faulty product' and 'after-sales service', with only occasional over-repetition of phrases like 'brand-new'.

Complex sentences, relative clauses and the final conditional request are generally controlled. Told me that they will send it can retain the original future wording; backshift to would is not an automatic requirement. The main weakness is repetitive phrasing rather than a clear recurring tense error.

The letter achieves a clear, formal complaint purpose and covers the situation and requested action with convincing detail, though the self-introduction is indirect and mostly implied through purchase history rather than stated.

The complaint sequence is understandable, but the entire letter, including its salutation and closing, is one paragraph. The purchase history, fault, previous contact and requested remedy need clearer grouping.

Vocabulary is flexible and natural for a formal complaint, with precise expressions such as 'eight days have already elapsed' and 'malfunctioned', though occasional phrasing is slightly loose.

A good range of sentence structures, including complex forms, is used with generally strong control and only minor errors that do not impede meaning.

The letter clearly covers all three bullet points—introducing himself, explaining the fault and the unanswered complaint, and requesting a replacement—using a suitable formal tone with specific supporting detail.

Ideas progress logically from introduction to explanation to requested action, with effective paragraphing and cohesive devices such as referencing the complaint timeline.

Vocabulary is generally flexible and precise, including topic-appropriate items like 'software issues' and 'reference number', though occasional slightly unnatural choices such as 'exhort' reduce precision.

A range of complex structures communicates the complaint clearly. However, caused the screen to flicker and then went blank gives the coordinated verb an unclear subject; caused the screen to flicker and then go blank would keep the intended pattern. Which is the end of the week is grammatically valid.

The letter clearly covers all three bullet points from the prompt, including self-introduction, explanation of the faulty phone and ignored complaint, and a requested callback, in a mostly appropriate formal register, though tone occasionally slips into exaggerated phrasing.

Ideas progress logically from introduction to situation to request, with effective use of cohesive devices such as 'However' and 'above that', despite some slightly strained transitions.

A wide and ambitious range of vocabulary is demonstrated, but items like 'deplorable event', 'exulted', and 'remorseful' are imprecise or misused for the context, with occasional spelling issues such as 'mam'.

Complex clauses and varied verb forms convey the complaint with generally good control. In the final sentence of the explanation, only to have switched his phone off leaves the subject of that action unclear. Stating explicitly what the representative did would improve the sentence’s precision.

The letter clearly explains the purchase, the unresolved fault and the requested replacement. It introduces the writer indirectly as a recent customer, but the name appears only in the signature; a brief explicit introduction would address that instruction more fully.

The narrative progresses from purchase to fault and requested action, but the whole letter, including the salutation and closing, is one continuous paragraph. Its main stages need separate grouping.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural complaint-register phrases such as 'to my dismay', 'entitled to', and 'seek legal advice', and only rare minor imprecision.

Relative clauses, varied tense forms and passive constructions are used with generally good control. The reported promise that the phone would be checked and dispatched is clearly formed. I am hoping you would replace it is a valid tentative request, and the main organisational problem is the lack of paragraph divisions.

The letter covers all three bullets from the prompt with an introduction, a detailed explanation of the defect and failed follow-up, and a clear requested action including a replacement deadline and refund alternative, all in a suitable formal register.

Paragraphing is logical and progression from introduction to situation to demand is easy to follow, though a few transitions such as 'The problem does not stop here' feel slightly informal or mechanical.

Vocabulary is generally flexible and natural, with phrases like 'went in vain', 'on priority', and 'entitled to a full refund', with only occasional awkwardness such as 'to my horror'.

Complex sentences, relative clauses and conditional requests show good range. The phrases for few days and within few days omit the article a, and I have been assured is awkward within the completed past event introduced by When I spoke. Request you look into is a valid construction with an omitted that.

The letter introduces the writer, explains the failed phone and unanswered complaint, and requests a clear remedy. The surname changes from Brooks in the introduction to Brook in the signature, creating an avoidable inconsistency in the customer’s identity.

Ideas progress logically from introduction to situation to requested action using varied cohesive devices, though some linking and repetition of 'malfunctioning device' feels slightly mechanical.

Vocabulary is flexible and largely precise for a complaint context, with only occasional formulaic collocations such as 'I would highly appreciate it' limiting full naturalness.

A good range of complex structures, including conditionals and relative clauses, is used with generally strong accuracy and only minor slips.

The letter explains the purchase, the fault, previous contact and the requested replacement or refund. Saying that contact occurred twice and mentioning contact a week ago is consistent. The customer is introduced through purchase details, while the long technical specification contributes little to explaining the fault.

The complaint has two main paragraphs and a broadly clear sequence. However, the opening combines the initial complaint with a long product specification, and the second paragraph combines the fault, follow-up, requested remedy and closing. More focused grouping would improve readability.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as 'manufacturing flaw', 'entitled to a replacement', and 'after-sale service' used appropriately for a formal complaint.

Complex clauses, passive constructions and the conditional deadline are generally controlled. The phrase the phone was poorly produced is grammatically valid, although it is broad and less informative than the specific description of the phone failing to start.

The letter directly achieves its communicative purpose, covering introduction, a clear explanation of the malfunction and unanswered complaint, and specific requested actions, all in an appropriately formal tone with convincing detail.

Ideas progress logically through paragraphing that mirrors the bullet points, with well-managed cohesive devices such as 'Following the initial malfunction' and 'Given the significant inconvenience.'

Vocabulary is generally flexible and precise for a formal complaint, though occasional imprecision such as 'from your Brownshire Road' and 'compensation for the delay in a week' limits full accuracy.

A wide range of grammatical structures, including complex conditionals and relative clauses, is used with flexibility and control, with only rare, non-impeding slips.