不用工作的生活与工作之间的选择

The disagreement with “always” is clear, and the discussion of stress, family life and purpose is relevant. However, the defence of working repeatedly introduces work-life balance rather than establishing why someone would prefer working most of the time to a life without work.

Ideas progress logically through well-structured paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices used naturally, producing a generally fluent and coherent argument.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations and some less common items such as 'devoid of work' and 'strike a balance', with only occasional awkward or repetitive phrasing.

A wide range of complex structures, including relative and concessive clauses, is handled with good control and frequent error-free sentences, with only minor slips.

The response maintains a clear position and gives relevant financial and personal reasons for working, but the concession needs a clearer distinction between giving up paid employment and living without work.

Ideas progress logically across clearly organised paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices used naturally, though a few transitions are slightly mechanical in places.

Vocabulary is sufficiently wide and precise for the topic, with good awareness of style and collocation, but occasional strained or unnatural word choices reduce precision.

Complex sentences, conditionals and participial phrases show generally good grammatical control, although some constructions are awkward and punctuation spacing is inconsistent.

The response maintains a clear disagreement and develops relevant reasons involving purpose, routine and social connection, but it does not examine why people would choose to work most of the time rather than not work.

Ideas progress logically across clearly organised paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices used naturally, although the sequencing and linking are somewhat mechanical at times.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, with good awareness of style and collocation, though some expressions are conventional and mildly repetitive.

A variety of complex structures are used with strong control, producing frequent error-free sentences with only rare, minor slips.

The response addresses the question directly with a clear position, developing three relevant main ideas with explanations and examples, though development remains somewhat general.

Ideas are organised logically into clear paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices used naturally, although linking is occasionally formulaic.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible for the topic, with some precise collocations, but word choice is often common and lacks variety.

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

The response presents a clear position throughout with well-developed main ideas and relevant support, though it engages the universality of the claim somewhat indirectly.

Ideas are logically organised with clear progression and effective cohesive devices, although some linking words are used mechanically.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocation and some less common items used accurately.

A wide range of structures is used with generally good control, and errors are rare and non-impeding, with occasional minor slips such as 'Beside this'.

The response clearly rejects a universal preference for no work and develops financial and personal benefits, but its preference for balance does not fully address the alternative of working most of the time.

Ideas progress logically across clear paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices, though some linking is occasionally mechanical or formulaic.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as 'financial stability,' 'idleness,' and 'burnout,' and only rare, minor lapses in usage.

A wide range of sentence structures, including complex and concessive forms, is used with strong accuracy and punctuation control throughout.