是否应禁止危险的极限运动

The position is clear and sustained throughout, main ideas are relevant and developed with explanation, and the conclusion adds a balanced safety recommendation, though one supporting idea relies on a somewhat questionable claim.

Paragraphing is logical with clear progression, and cohesive devices such as 'compared with' and 'thus' are used flexibly, with only occasional slightly mechanical referencing.

There is a good range of topic-related vocabulary, including 'prohibited', 'recreational activity' and 'precautionary measures'. Precision is less consistent: 'reliver' is misspelled, 'stressful' misdescribes people experiencing stress, and 'feasibility' is misused for coping capacity.

A variety of complex structures, including relative clauses and participial phrases, are used with flexibility and generally good control, with errors that are minor and rarely impede meaning.

The response directly answers the question with a consistently clear disagreement, develops each main idea with supporting explanation and concrete examples, and reaches a relevant conclusion.

Ideas progress logically across clearly organised paragraphs, linked by a range of cohesive devices used naturally and with only rare, minor lapses.

Vocabulary is flexible and generally precise, including topic-specific expressions such as 'safety procedures', 'protective equipment' and 'appropriate precautions', with only occasional imprecision in the strength or framing of claims.

A wide range of complex structures, including conditionals, relative clauses and accurate modality, is used with flexibility and frequent error-free sentences.