禁止危险运动还是尊重选择自由

The response addresses both views and states a clear opinion with some development, but the ideas are unevenly extended and the examples are weakly integrated and only partially relevant.

Paragraphing is logical and progression is broadly clear, though cohesion is sometimes mechanical and transitions such as 'It is due to this reason' and 'However' are used stiffly.

There is adequate vocabulary range with some less common items like 'accorded' and 'untoward incident', but recurring awkward collocations such as 'characteristic of an individual' and 'not reasonably positively skewed' limit precision.

A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, but frequent errors in articles, agreement ('the survivors... who has'), and sentence construction reduce accuracy without fully blocking meaning.

The response addresses both views and gives a clear opinion, supported by relevant examples. However, the defence of personal choice does not fully answer the stated risks to spectators and organisers, and some claims about safety measures are too absolute.

Ideas are organised into clear paragraphs with logical progression and appropriate cohesive devices, though links within some argument sequences are occasionally mechanical.

The response uses a good range of topic-specific vocabulary naturally, such as risk management and mandatory protective gear, with only occasional imprecision in word choice.

A variety of complex structures is used with reasonable control, and while minor errors occur, they rarely impede understanding.

Both views are discussed with a clear opinion maintained throughout, and main ideas are supported with relevant explanation and a concrete example, though some development is slightly generic.

Ideas progress logically across clearly structured paragraphs, with clear signals for the two views. Within the risk paragraph, the loosely placed “though rare” interrupts the explanation, and the conclusion could bring the autonomy argument back into focus.

There is a sufficient range of less common, topic-appropriate vocabulary, though “specialized gears” misuses the equipment term, “within their individual liberties” is awkward, and “fatal wounds or even deaths” repeats the same outcome.

A variety of complex structures is used with good flexibility. Errors include the comma splice before “therefore” and the incomplete “preventing them from sports” construction, but these rarely prevent understanding.

Both views are discussed with a clear opinion, and main ideas are supported with relevant examples, though some points such as the effect of training are developed only briefly.

Ideas progress logically across clear paragraphs with cohesive devices used naturally, although a few linkages between claim and support remain loose.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as invigorating experience and rigorous training, and only occasional less idiomatic phrasing.

A wide range of sentence structures is used with generally good control, including complex conditionals and relative clauses, with only minor non-impeding errors.

Both views are discussed and the preference for freedom with limited restrictions is clear. However, the first body paragraph shifts from prohibition to partial regulation, leaving the case for a complete ban underdeveloped.

Ideas progress logically across well-structured paragraphs with effective linking devices, with only minor local disruption from unfinished sentences.

The response shows a good range of topic-appropriate vocabulary such as 'outright outlaw', 'exhilarating', and 'prohibition', with only occasional imprecision.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control. The missing verb and noun in the first body paragraph, the misplaced relative clause and the singular possessive without a determiner reduce accuracy.

The response discusses both views and maintains a clear position in favour of a ban. Personal fulfilment and online imitation are relevant supporting ideas, but the argument does not fully explain how prohibition would prevent imitation or why narrower safeguards would be insufficient.

Paragraphing is logical, with a clear progression from personal freedom to public protection and a concluding judgement. Linking expressions guide the reader, although the move from harmful online videos to a ban on the sports needs a clearer logical bridge.

Vocabulary is varied and often effective, including “infringement upon people’s freedoms” and “channel their energy into”. However, “adrenaline junkies” is a loaded informal expression, while “performing risky behaviour” and “fields of ... career” are awkward collocations.

A wide range of structures is used with good control, including inversion, relative clauses, and complex sentences, with only occasional minor errors or awkward phrasing that do not impede meaning.

The response addresses all parts of the task, discusses both views clearly, and presents a consistent opinion supported by relevant explanation, though development occasionally relies on repeated rather than extended ideas.

Ideas progress logically across clear paragraphs with effective cohesive devices, but some content redundancy, such as the duplicated training and safety point, slightly reduces the efficiency of progression.

Vocabulary is wide and used naturally for the topic, with precise items like inherent dangers, meticulous training, and informed consent, and only minor stylistic repetition.

A good range of sentence structures is used with generally strong control, including relative clauses and concession, though the final sentence leaves a supplementary clause unclosed.

The essay directly addresses both views, develops a clear personal opinion with relevant examples and mitigating measures, and extends and supports its main ideas well.

Progression is generally logical, with clear paragraphing and useful linking. However, the introduction promises an argument about risk in all sports that is not developed, and the second paragraph uses unclear references such as “It” and “This”.

There is a wide vocabulary range, including effective expressions such as “autonomy”, “outright ban” and “mitigate the risks”, but awkward collocations such as “undergoing the severities” and “curbs one’s harmony” reduce precision.

A wide range of complex structures is used flexibly and accurately, with only rare minor errors that do not impede communication.

The response discusses both views and maintains a clear position, acknowledging risk in the conclusion. However, the BASE-jumping example makes unsupported injury claims, and the fitness and proportionality arguments need clearer development.

Ideas are logically organised into clear paragraphs, progression is smooth, and cohesive devices such as 'Firstly', 'However' and 'In addition' are used flexibly and accurately.

Vocabulary is flexible and largely precise, with natural phrases like 'out of all proportion', 'springboard for positive personal transformation' and 'mental scars', despite occasional imprecision.

A wide range of complex structures is used with generally good control, though occasional awkward constructions such as 'the dangers are potentially existing' reduce overall accuracy.

The essay addresses both views and presents a clear, qualified opinion distinguishing supported contact sports from activities in remote environments. Relevant examples develop the discussion, although the rescue-worker example needs a clearer link to prohibition rather than access controls.

Ideas progress logically across well-organised paragraphs with effective sequencing and referencing, producing a coherent and convincing overall argument.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as outright prohibition, stringent control, competency certificates and across-the-board prohibition, and only very minor imprecision.

A wide range of complex structures is used with strong control, though the opening of the personal-choice paragraph is a fragment: its relative clause leaves the sentence without a main clause.