广告的说服力与消费者的漠视

The response addresses all parts of the task, discusses both views and states a clear consistent opinion, though the supporting ideas remain somewhat general and under-extended in places.

The essay has clear paragraphing and a generally logical progression. Some development repeats the loss-of-attention claim, and the first body paragraph turns to advertising’s effectiveness before the next paragraph introduces that same side with “On the other hand”.

There is a good range of vocabulary for the topic, including 'ubiquity', 'desensitized', 'disseminate', and 'aspirations', used naturally with only minor imprecision.

Complex structures, including subordinate clauses and conditionals, are generally controlled and easy to follow. A local noun-use error remains in “advertisement has become so commonplace”, where the uncountable activity noun “advertising” is needed.

Both views are discussed and the position remains clear. Repetition, emotional appeal and named campaigns support the effectiveness view, while the explanation of saturation receives less development before the rebuttal begins.

Ideas are logically organized into clear paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices and generally smooth progression across the argument.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, with some natural collocations like 'emotional appeal' and 'ubiquity leads to disinterest', though occasional awkward phrasing appears.

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

The response addresses both views and gives a clear opinion, with main ideas extended and supported by examples, though some development is occasionally uneven and the concluding position is slightly muddled.

Ideas are organised logically across clear paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices used generally well, although referencing and the conclusion's progression are occasionally strained.

There is a good range of vocabulary with some flexibility and less common items such as 'indispensable' and 'conspicuous', but occasional imprecision in collocation reduces the effect.

A variety of complex structures, including inversion and concessive clauses, is used with reasonable flexibility, though some sentences lose clarity and there are minor grammatical slips.

Both views are addressed and a clear, consistent opinion is presented with relevant reasoning, but support is partly generalized and the response falls 9 words short of the minimum length.

Ideas progress logically across clear paragraphs with effective linking devices, though repetition of phrases like 'for instance' shows slightly mechanical cohesion.

Vocabulary is reasonably flexible and precise, with items such as 'ubiquitous', 'bombardment', and 'averse', alongside occasional awkward or imprecise choices like 'cost-ineffective' and 'showcases'.

A good range of complex structures is used with generally firm control, but recurring subject-verb agreement errors, such as 'returns... is' and 'amounts... does', persist.

Both views are addressed with a clear position stated upfront and sustained, relevant development and examples throughout, though the conclusion's new regulatory claim is not fully prepared by the body paragraphs.

Ideas progress logically across well-structured paragraphs with effective use of contrastive and referencing devices, with only occasional mechanical cohesion such as the abrupt final-sentence shift.

Vocabulary is flexible and largely precise, including “less conspicuous”, “targeted ads” and “sales conversions”. The misspelling “succcessful” and less clear combinations such as “cross-test content” and “portends badly” occasionally reduce precision.

A wide range of complex structures is used with flexibility and frequent accuracy, though occasional minor errors in sentence construction are present without impeding meaning.

The essay addresses all parts of the task, discussing both views with a clear and consistent opinion, though development relies on somewhat generalised support in places.

Ideas are logically organised with clear progression and effective cohesive devices, although linking is occasionally mechanical, such as the abrupt use of 'Secondly'.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations like 'wields significant persuasive power' and 'advertising fatigue', though some phrasing is slightly formulaic.

A wide range of complex structures is used with strong control, and errors are rare and minor, such as the unnecessary comma separating 'so many ads' from the result clause introduced by 'that'.

The response fully addresses both views and presents a clear, well-qualified opinion, with relevant and extended examples supporting each position.

Ideas progress logically from advertising incentives and targeting to saturation and a qualified conclusion. Cohesive devices guide the discussion clearly, although a few pronoun references could be more direct.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, featuring natural collocations such as 'time-limited', 'browsing habits' and 'background noise', with only rare minor imprecision.

A wide range of complex structures is used accurately, including conditional and relative clauses. The concluding sentence could be streamlined so that advertising is named before the pronoun referring to it.