无现金社会与现金支付的未来

The response addresses both questions, presents a clear qualified position that a cashless future is plausible, and develops each main idea with relevant explanation, though support is occasionally general rather than example-based.

Ideas progress logically through clear paragraphing and cohesive devices, producing a coherent argument, although some linking is somewhat mechanical at paragraph openings.

Vocabulary is wide and precise for the topic, with natural collocations such as 'financial exclusion', 'digital footprint', and 'alleviated', showing flexibility with only rare imprecision.

A variety of complex structures, including conditionals, relative clauses, and participial phrases, is used with good control, and errors are rare and non-impeding.

The response fully addresses both parts of the question with a clear, consistent position and relevant, extended support, though ideas are developed adequately rather than in full depth.

Ideas progress logically across clearly structured paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices used naturally, with only minor mechanical tendencies in linking.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural academic collocations such as financial autonomy and eliminating cash altogether, and only rare slips.

A wide range of sentence structures, including complex and subordinate forms, is used with generally good control and only occasional minor inaccuracy.

Both parts of the task are addressed with a clear position and relevant, well-supported ideas, though the prediction is presented somewhat one-sidedly without weighing possible obstacles.

The essay progresses logically through clear paragraphs with effective cohesion devices and a well-managed overall structure.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as 'financial exclusion', 'data breaches', and 'tangible and anonymous mode of payment'.

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

The response addresses both questions and takes a clear position that a cashless society is likely, but the reasons some people might be unhappy to give up cash receive limited, underdeveloped coverage compared with the extended discussion of drivers toward digital payments.

Ideas progress logically across well-managed paragraphs with effective cohesive devices, though some transitions and linkages are somewhat mechanical or over-formal in places.

Vocabulary is wide and largely precise, with natural handling of less common items, although some phrases feel inflated or slightly forced at the expense of directness.

A wide range of complex structures is used with consistent flexibility and accuracy, with only rare, non-impeding slips across the response.

Both questions are addressed with relevant, extended ideas on drivers of digital payment adoption and reasons for resistance to losing cash, but the position on whether this will actually happen remains qualified and less directly committed than it could be.

The essay is logically sequenced with clear paragraph purposes and a range of cohesive devices, though transitions such as 'Moreover' are used somewhat mechanically and links between ideas are occasionally loose.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as 'proliferation of smartphones', 'digital footprint', and 'marginalized communities', and only rare, minor stylistic heaviness.

A wide range of complex structures is used with generally good control, including subordinate clauses and participle constructions, with errors being infrequent and non-impeding.