核技术的好处与弊端

The response presents a clear position and addresses the question through two benefits, but the ideas are only partially developed, the support is vague and internally inconsistent, and the counterargument in the prompt is never engaged.

There is an apparent overall structure with basic linking devices, but progression within paragraphs is mechanical and repetitive, and some statements do not connect logically.

Vocabulary is limited and repetitive, with attempts at less common items undermined by spelling errors such as 'sollution' and 'technolgy' and imprecise usage like 'include saving'.

A mix of simple and some complex forms is attempted, but frequent errors in articles, agreement, and verb forms, including meaning-distorting negatives like 'has any harmfull effect', regularly reduce accuracy.

The response presents a clear position that benefits outweigh disadvantages and addresses both safety and energy, but ideas are only partially developed and the supporting examples are factually implausible, limiting the task coverage.

There is a discernible paragraph structure with some linking devices, but progression is mechanical and cohesion is often faulty, such as the illogical 'Although... however' framing of the conclusion.

Vocabulary shows some attempt at topic-related phrasing such as 'policy makers' and 'low-cost', yet it is often imprecise or awkward, as in 'utilized nuclear atom' and 'way outweigh'.

Sentence structures are frequently error-prone, including broken comparative constructions, subject-verb issues like 'benefits... clears the air', and faulty clause combinations, which sometimes strain comprehension.

The essay states a clear position and addresses both nuclear deterrence and energy benefits, but ideas are unevenly developed, the example is loosely relevant, and the handling of the disadvantage is confusing and contradictory.

The response uses a clear paragraph structure with common cohesive devices, yet progression within paragraphs is often mechanical and several passages, including the final sentence, are hard to follow.

There is adequate range of topic-related vocabulary such as repercussions, carbon emissions, and conventional fuels, but awkward and inaccurate collocations recur and limit precision.

A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, but frequent errors in verb forms, articles, and sentence construction, especially in the conclusion, reduce overall accuracy and clarity.

A clear position of disagreement is presented and supported with relevant main ideas and examples, though some points are thinly developed and the closing paragraph does not consolidate the argument.

The response is organised into distinct paragraphs with some linking devices, but progression is occasionally mechanical and transitions between ideas, including the abrupt final paragraph, reduce overall coherence.

There is an attempt to use less common vocabulary such as 'impediments' and 'humongous', but several choices are inaccurate or unnatural, such as 'diverge with' and 'sputniks moments', limiting precision.

A mix of simple and complex sentence forms is used with generally accurate grammar, though recurring errors in tense, parallelism, and agreement slightly impede fluency at points.

The response addresses the question with a clear position and covers both benefits and drawbacks of nuclear technology, but the main ideas are unevenly developed and support is weak, including an implausible example, keeping it at adequate rather than strong task coverage.

The essay follows a visible overall progression with basic linking devices, yet cohesion is often mechanical and formulaic, with some linkers used inappropriately, so ideas flow only satisfactorily.

Vocabulary is adequate for the topic with some appropriate items such as arsenals and hazardous waste, but there are noticeable word choice and collocation errors like environmentalist and much more than its demerits that reduce precision.

A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, but frequent errors in articles, agreement, and sentence boundaries, such as Although its manufacturing can lead to many environmental problems as a fragment, persist while meaning remains mostly clear.

The response addresses the question with a clear position of qualified disagreement and develops relevant main ideas with examples, though development is uneven and the argument sometimes drifts.

Ideas are arranged in a discernible progression, but cohesion is often mechanical and referential links and paragraphing are inconsistent, causing occasional strain for the reader.

There is an adequate range of vocabulary with some attempt at less common items, but frequent awkward collocations such as 'far-weight' and 'all walks of life' reduce precision.

A mix of simple and complex structures is used with some accuracy, yet errors in articles, agreement, and verb forms are frequent enough to require effort from the reader at times.

The response maintains disagreement while acknowledging benefits and discussing risks to safety and peace. It develops relevant points with an example, but some claims are overgeneralised, such as presenting nuclear power as the only solution to global warming, and need fuller justification.

Ideas are arranged into logical paragraphs with generally clear progression, but linking devices such as 'doubtlessly', 'besides' and 'meanwhile' are sometimes mechanical or imprecise.

There is an adequate range of topic-related vocabulary (reactant leakage, energy crisis, hazardous), but imprecise collocations like 'thousand times electricity' and 'defences to against' limit flexibility and accuracy.

A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, yet frequent errors in agreement, word form, and sentence construction ('can eases', 'which the harmful consequences are still unknown') reduce accuracy, though meaning remains mostly clear.

The essay states a clear position and supports it with relevant examples, but it repeatedly conflates nuclear weapons with nuclear power plants, so the argument does not fully address the prompt as a coherent whole.

Ideas are organised into logical paragraphs with a range of linking devices, though transitions such as 'Having said that.' are misused and the progression within paragraphs is occasionally mechanical.

Vocabulary is adequate for the task with some appropriate terms like 'baseload power' and 'zero carbon emission', but imprecise usage such as 'huge than', 'enumerable', and 'healthier' as a noun limits precision.

A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, but frequent errors, including 'the threat it present', 'if they are destructive hands', and sentence fragments, reduce accuracy without obscuring the core message.

The position is clear throughout and the two main arguments—weapon misuse and catastrophic accidents—are developed with relevant explanation and a concrete example, though some points lean on assertion rather than fuller support.

The arguments about weapons and accidents follow an understandable sequence, but the entire essay is one paragraph. Frequent use of "But" and "And then" creates mechanical links, and the main arguments need clearer separation and grouping.

Vocabulary is generally sufficient and topical, with phrases like 'weapon of much destruction' and 'strict monitoring', though some collocations and phrasing are imprecise or repetitive.

A mix of complex structures is attempted with some success, but recurring errors such as 'even though...but', 'discuss in details', and tense or article slips are noticeable without blocking meaning.

The response addresses the question with a clear position and relevant ideas on deterrence and energy supply, but some points are asserted rather than fully developed and the treatment of disadvantages is brief.

Progression is broadly clear with logical paragraphing, though some linking devices are mechanical and the contrast between benefits and drawbacks is handled somewhat abruptly.

There is a good range of vocabulary with attempts at less common items, but occasional inaccurate or unnatural collocations such as 'dooming consequences' and 'propitiously advantageous' reduce precision.

A variety of complex structures is used with reasonable accuracy, and most errors are minor and do not impede understanding, though control is not consistently precise throughout.

The response directly answers the question with a clear disagree position, covers both benefits and drawbacks with relevant supporting detail, and extends main ideas sufficiently throughout.

Ideas are logically organised into clear paragraph roles with consistent use of cohesive devices, though some linking is somewhat mechanical and one example (nuclear stocks in the Middle East) is loosely integrated.

There is a good range of topic-specific vocabulary such as 'radioactive waste', 'CO2 footprint' and 'energy capacity', with generally appropriate usage despite occasional awkward collocations like 'energy politics' and 'nuclear stocks'.

A mix of structures is attempted, including complex sentences and subordinate clauses, but frequent grammatical errors in tense and verb form, while rarely impeding meaning, keep accuracy below consistently correct levels.

The response directly answers the question with a clear position, well-developed main ideas, and relevant supporting examples covering both peace and energy claims.

Ideas progress logically across clear paragraphs with effective referencing and linking devices, though development within paragraphs is sometimes brief rather than fully extended.

Vocabulary is precise and naturally used, with good range in items like rogue commander, ultimate deterrent, and high-profile accidents, alongside only occasional less ambitious phrasing.

A wide range of structures is used flexibly and accurately, including complex sentences and subordinate clauses, with only minor, non-impeding slips.