危险运动的原因与安全对策

The response addresses both questions with relevant reasons (adventure-seeking, ambition, self-defence skills, money, publicity) and appropriate suggestions, but ideas are only partially developed, the Mary Kom example is brief, and the response falls short of the 250-word minimum.

There is a visible overall structure with linking phrases and a conclusion, but progression is often mechanical, paragraphs are unevenly developed, and some statements (e.g. about profit and publicity) lack connected explanation.

Vocabulary is adequate for the topic with some attempted range (ambitious, publicity, regulation), but word-choice errors such as 'Montery problem', 'how to defined themselves', and 'awareness of dangerous' and inconsistent collocation limit precision and flexibility.

A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, but frequent errors in verb forms, articles, agreement, and sentence construction ('she injured so many time', 'Government also implement', 'help to people handle it') regularly reduce accuracy and clarity.

The response addresses both questions with a relevant set of reasons and suggestions, though some ideas are listed rather than fully extended and the conclusion adds little.

The reasons and precautions follow an understandable order, but the whole essay is one continuous paragraph. This makes the move between motivations, examples and safety measures harder to follow, while references such as "the said reasons" remain vague.

Vocabulary is adequate for the topic with some appropriate collocations, yet expressions like 'adrenaline-raising sports' and 'risks come with a price tag' show imprecision and repetition.

A mix of simple and complex sentences is used with generally clear meaning, but errors in articles, tense, and agreement, such as 'an obstacle struck', occur throughout.

The response addresses both questions with a relevant position on motivations and workable suggestions, but ideas are developed unevenly and support remains somewhat limited and generalized.

Progression is broadly clear with basic cohesive devices, yet paragraph organization is mechanical and some referencing and linking within sentences is faulty.

Vocabulary is adequate for the topic with some appropriate items like 'release their stress' and 'regulatory authorities', but there are noticeable imprecisions such as 'windsurf' and 'deal with their dangerous'.

Simple and complex sentences communicate the main ideas, but control is uneven. "They may still young" omits be after the modal, and the sentence about negative energy joins independent clauses with a comma. The relative clauses using that are generally valid and do not establish a pattern of relative-structure errors.

The response answers both questions with a clear position and developed examples, though ideas are sometimes generalised and the conclusion exaggerates the safety claim.

Progression is broadly clear with linking devices, but the lack of paragraphing and long comma-spliced passages reduce overall coherence.

Vocabulary is adequate and sometimes precise for the topic, though there are occasional errors such as 'those sort of games' and imprecise collocations.

A range of complex structures is attempted, but run-on sentences and faulty comma splices recur, with errors that occasionally impede readability.

The response addresses both questions with a clear position and relevant supporting examples, but ideas remain somewhat underdeveloped and the argument relies heavily on anecdote rather than extended analysis.

Paragraphs give a clear sequence of two motivations, a safety suggestion and a conclusion. Some linking is mechanical, and moreover joins two independent clauses with commas where stronger sentence punctuation is needed. The statement about dangers being popular is an imprecise claim rather than a transition.

Vocabulary is adequate for the topic with some appropriate collocations like 'adrenaline level' and 'appropriate tools', though phrasing is occasionally imprecise or unnatural, as in 'dangers are quite popular'.

A mix of simple and complex structures conveys the main ideas with reasonable control. "His nose is broken twice" uses an awkward tense for the two completed injuries described, and the sentence joined by moreover has faulty punctuation. "Attend dangerous sports events" is grammatical, although it does not clearly mean taking part.

The response addresses both questions with a clear purpose and relevant supporting examples, though some ideas are padded and development of the financial-motivation point and solutions remains somewhat uneven.

Progression is generally clear across cause and solution sections, but cohesion relies on mechanical linkers such as 'Other than that' and 'Talking about', and some sentences read as loosely connected.

There is an ambitious range of less common vocabulary, but repeated misuse and improbable collocations, such as 'diacatholicon', 'prove their candour', and 'enchant people', reduce precision and occasionally impede clarity.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, though errors like 'made even more people to go ahead' and some awkward constructions show flexibility is not always accurate.

The response addresses both questions with a relevant position, examples, and suggestions, but ideas are covered adequately rather than fully extended in depth.

Organisation is clear with logical paragraphing and sequencing devices such as firstly, secondly, and finally, though cohesion is at times mechanical and links between sentences occasionally loose.

There is adequate vocabulary range with some appropriate items like 'adrenalin rush' and 'circumspect', but several imprecise or odd word choices, such as 'mincing sports' and 'threatening sports', reduce accuracy.

A mix of simple and complex structures is used with reasonable accuracy, but errors in articles, agreement, and phrasing, such as 'sports person should train oneself under experienced coach', occur with some frequency.

The response addresses motivations and risk reduction with relevant examples and several measures. However, the excitement motive is only briefly developed, and the claim that one or two days of training can avoid any dangers is too categorical for the support provided.

The ideas have an understandable sequence, but the entire essay is one continuous paragraph. The reasons, examples and safety measures need separate grouping, and several formulaic links do not compensate for the absence of paragraph organisation.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, showing good awareness of style and collocation with only rare, minor slips such as the plural form 'safety gears'.

A wide range of complex structures is used with generally good control, and errors are infrequent and rarely impede meaning.

The response addresses both questions directly, presents developed reasons and safety measures, and supports them with relevant examples, with only minor unevenness in depth of development.

Ideas progress logically across clear paragraphs with a smooth introduction and conclusion, though cohesion depends at times on mechanical connectors such as 'moreover', 'to begin with', and 'next'.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible for the topic, with apt word choices like 'adrenaline rush', 'hazardous', and 'informed choices', alongside some repetitive and slightly imprecise phrasing such as 'also' overuse and 'the participation of people'.

Complex sentences, relative clauses and passive structures are generally accurate. "Attracted towards" and "many of the people" are valid constructions. Minor presentation slips include the missing space in "aboutthe" and the incomplete punctuation around "at times".