名人的光环财富与对青少年的影响

The topic is addressed only partially because the position is vague and the response drifts into contradictory claims, including a conclusion that pivots to balance rather than a clear degree of agreement.

The essay remains one paragraph, making its introduction, supporting arguments and conclusion difficult to distinguish. Connectives such as “Hence” and “Notwithstanding” do not consistently clarify the relationships between ideas.

There is a noticeable range of less common vocabulary such as 'idolatry', 'exacerbated', and 'plebeian', though frequent imprecise word choice like 'hail', 'elusive beauties', and 'inviting fame' reduces precision.

A variety of complex structures is attempted, but frequent errors in agreement, article use, and sentence construction, such as 'a person need someone' and 'this create a bad impact', often impede clarity.

The response gives a qualified disagreement and considers positive and negative celebrity influence. However, it develops the effects of imitation more than the comparison between wealth and achievements, and its examples make unsupported claims about social outcomes.

The argument moves recognisably from an introduction to positive and negative examples and a conclusion, but all of these stages are presented in one paragraph. Unclear pronoun references and the transition “On the contrary” also weaken cohesion.

There is adequate vocabulary range, including attempts at less common items such as “recapitulate” and “idealising”. However, expressions such as “get their glimpse”, “follow their footprint” and “displaying the same act” show imprecise collocation.

The response uses simple and complex structures, but faulty result clauses, malformed verb constructions and comma splices recur. These errors generally leave the intended argument understandable, although the longer sentences become difficult to follow.

The response addresses the task with a clear qualified position and relevant extended examples, but ideas are sometimes underdeveloped and the claim that critical-thinking teenagers prevail is asserted rather than fully supported.

The argument moves from harmful influence to positive role models and a conclusion, using recognisable linking phrases. However, the entire response is a single paragraph, and the final example runs directly into the conclusion without sentence-ending punctuation.

Vocabulary is adequate for the argument with some attempts at less common items such as 'credulous' and 'discerning', but there are noticeable word-choice errors like 'taken into', 'allurement', and 'wisely enough'.

Simple and complex structures are attempted, but errors in prepositions, adjective forms and clause construction reduce accuracy. Examples include impact ... but not for, are wisely enough, and the incomplete sentence beginning For example, the international boxer figure.

The response fully agrees with the statement, presents a clear consistent position, and develops two relevant main ideas, though support sometimes leans on assertion and generalisation rather than fully elaborated evidence.

The sequence of introduction, two arguments and conclusion is signposted by “Firstly,” “Secondly” and “Having analysed,” but the essay is one unbroken paragraph. Some causal links and references are unclear, including the move from seeking shortcuts to procrastination.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and includes natural idiomatic expressions like 'blood, sweat and tears' and 'venerates', though occasional awkward or inaccurate collocations such as 'worldly possessions of their ideals' reduce precision.

Complex structures are attempted, including relative clauses and participial openings, but recurring comma splices, an example sentence without a main verb and a dangling “Having analysed” clause weaken control. Much of the intended meaning remains recoverable.

The response addresses the question, presents a position, and develops both views with relevant named examples, though the stance shifts subtly between agreeing in the introduction and disagreeing in the conclusion and some points are repetitively stated rather than extended.

Paragraphing is logical with clear progression through both sides of the argument and a cohesive conclusion, aided by appropriate linking devices, despite occasional mechanical transitions.

Vocabulary is generally adequate for the topic with some natural collocations, but imprecision and awkward phrasing such as 'making sensation', 'worth to be followed', and 'young age people' recur.

A range of complex structures is attempted, but errors are frequent, including faulty relative clauses ('there are other famous people are popular'), incorrect infinitives ('to achieved success'), and misused conjunctions after 'although'.

The position is clearly stated and supported with relevant examples, but ideas remain somewhat repetitive and the conclusion drifts toward a generalised message rather than consolidating the argument.

Progression is broadly clear with logical paragraphing, though linking devices are somewhat mechanical and the fourth paragraph feels underdeveloped relative to the whole.

Vocabulary shows range through words such as “palatial” and “opulent”, but expressions such as “instigates such attitudes” and “creating sensational acts” are imprecise or awkward. Repetition and formulaic phrasing also limit flexibility.

A good range of structures is used with generally accurate control, including complex sentences, while minor slips such as 'a lot many others' remain rare and non-impeding.

The response maintains a clear disagreement and supplies relevant examples of charity and entrepreneurship. However, the link between those activities and achievement as a source of fame needs fuller explanation.

Ideas progress logically across well-organised paragraphs with clear linking, although some cohesive devices and transitions feel mechanical.

The response shows a wide vocabulary range with awareness of style, but overuse of formulaic and imprecise expressions such as 'contemporary epoch' and 'vehemently disaccord' limits naturalness and accuracy.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, and frequent error-free sentences are present despite occasional awkward or slightly ungrammatical constructions.

The essay addresses the task with a qualified disagreement, but the examples of deserved wealth and the criticism of media coverage need clearer links to whether celebrity images harm young people.

Ideas progress logically across clear paragraphs with generally effective cohesion devices and a smooth, well-managed overall progression.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and mostly precise, with some natural collocations and topic-appropriate word choice, though occasionally repetitive phrasing appears.

A range of simple and complex sentences is generally controlled accurately. The thesis uses a future form where a present-tense statement would express the writer’s current position more directly.

The response addresses the question with a clear though qualified position, develops both sides with relevant examples, and reaches a conclusion, but the extent of agreement remains somewhat under-argued.

Ideas progress logically across well-managed paragraphs with effective referencing and cohesive devices, though transitions are occasionally mechanical.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, with good topic-related phrasing, though some collocations are slightly awkward such as 'humble characteristic' and 'twisted perspective on life's values'.

A good range of structures is used with flexibility and accuracy, including complex sentences and relative clauses, with only minor errors that do not impede meaning.

The response addresses the topic and presents a discernible, nuanced position, but it hedges between agreeing and deflecting responsibility, and ideas are only adequately developed with limited concrete support.

Paragraphing is logical and progression is clear, though cohesive devices such as repeated 'moreover' and 'ultimately' are somewhat mechanical and the conclusion overlaps with earlier content.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and mostly precise, with natural phrases like 'epitome of success', though some collocations such as 'social undertakings' are slightly unnatural.

A range of complex structures is used with good flexibility and control, and errors are rare and non-impeding.