运动与音乐：天赋还是后天培养

The essay addresses both views and maintains a clear, consistent position with a concluding restatement, but some ideas and examples are relevant yet underdeveloped or only loosely supported.

Ideas progress logically across well-separated paragraphs with appropriate linking, though cohesion within paragraphs is sometimes mechanical and the transition into the opposing view is slightly abrupt.

There is an adequate range of vocabulary for the topic, including items like 'intensive training programs' and 'inborn qualities', but some collocations and expressions are imprecise, such as 'enable owners to excel'.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally clear meaning, but recurring errors such as 'require learners some talents' and faulty relative constructions show imperfect control.

Both views are addressed with a clear, consistently maintained opinion, and each body paragraph offers a relevant example, though the ideas are somewhat limited in development and one example is loosely used.

Progression is generally clear with a logical paragraph structure and basic cohesive devices, but linking is at times mechanical and 'Although,' at the start of the thesis sentence is inaccurately used.

Vocabulary is adequate for the topic with some natural collocations like 'perform excellently' and 'maximum capacity', though there are occasional imprecise expressions and no notable range of less common items.

A mix of complex and simple structures is present with generally accurate clauses, but recurring errors such as 'can be learn', 'in other to', and 'talented with it' show limited control at higher levels.

Both views are discussed with a clear personal position and relevant supporting examples, though ideas are developed adequately rather than fully extended.

The essay progresses logically through clear paragraphing and appropriate cohesive devices, with only occasionally mechanical linking.

Vocabulary shows good range and flexibility, including less common items like innate, nurtured, and proficiency, with minor imprecision such as hardcore practice.

A variety of complex structures are used with good control, and errors are minor and do not impede understanding.

The essay discusses both views clearly, states a definite opinion from the outset, and supports it with relevant examples, though the second view could be developed slightly more deeply.

Ideas are organised logically across clear paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices, and progression is generally smooth despite occasional slightly mechanical linking.

Vocabulary is flexible and mostly precise, using idiomatic items such as 'head start', 'harness a skill' and 'hard work beats talent', with only minor awkwardness like 'as a mediocre'.

A variety of complex structures are used with generally good control, though errors such as 'which ultimately help' and 'majority of the people' recur without impeding meaning.

The essay covers both views fully, presents a clear and nuanced position throughout, and develops each idea with relevant explanation, though examples remain general rather than specific.

Paragraphing is logical and sequencing is seamless, with a wide range of cohesive devices such as however, in other words and as with all questions of nature versus nurture used naturally.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, featuring natural academic collocations like innate talent, mutually exclusive and guided practice, with only rare imprecision.

A wide range of structures is used with strong control, including complex conditionals and relative clauses, and errors are rare and non-impeding.