电脑让生活更轻松还是更有压力

A clear position is presented and both benefits and harms are touched on, but ideas are only partially developed, examples are thin, and points such as the history of the computer do not advance the argument.

The response has an overall shape with linking devices, but progression is mechanical and sometimes illogical, with misused sequencing like 'Firstly', 'Secondly', and 'Thirdly' and abrupt shifts between ideas.

Vocabulary is adequate for the topic but limited and often imprecise, with noticeable awkward or incorrect phrasing such as 'makes easy many kinds of jobs', 'do people slothful', and 'do lightly videos'.

A mix of simple and some complex structures appears, but frequent errors in article use, verb forms, and sentence construction, such as 'can be damage human's eyesight', regularly reduce accuracy and clarity.

The response presents a clear position throughout, addresses the question, and develops two relevant main ideas, though the second example is muddled and support is uneven.

The response moves from an opinion through two reasons to a conclusion, using clear signposts. However, there are no paragraph breaks, and the confused explanation of the aeroplane example interrupts the logical flow of the second reason.

Vocabulary is adequate for the task with some appropriate items such as 'contributes to our society', but it is limited in range and includes awkward or inaccurate usages like 'sky roads'.

A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, but frequent errors in articles, verb forms, and voice ('to use of', 'uses by architects') reduce accuracy and at times obscure meaning.

The response addresses both views with relevant, extended examples, but the stated opinion remains vague and the conclusion avoids a clear personal stance.

Ideas are arranged in a broadly logical order with some cohesive devices, though transitions are occasionally abrupt and paragraphing is not clearly managed.

Vocabulary is adequate for the topic with attempts at less common items, but awkward collocations such as 'computer covers every prospect' and 'just but waste of time' reduce precision.

A mix of simple and complex structures is used with generally clear meaning, although errors in articles, agreement, and phrasing occur with noticeable frequency.

The essay covers both perspectives with relevant examples and reaches a clear personal opinion, but the position is introduced late and some arguments, such as the factory and banking points, are unevenly developed.

Ideas are arranged in a broadly logical sequence with basic linking devices, yet cohesion is mechanical and occasionally breaks down, as in the abrupt 'how? you may ask!' insertion.

Vocabulary is adequate for the task with some attempts at less common items like 'phishing' and 'addiction', but there are awkward or inaccurate collocations such as 'communication our relatives' and 'Aforesaid computer games'.

A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, but frequent errors in verb forms, articles, and agreement, for example 'aren't gone to school' and 'a lot of time people are spent', reduce accuracy and at times obscure meaning.

Both perspectives are addressed and a clear personal position is stated and reiterated, but supporting ideas such as the education and addiction examples are underdeveloped and expressed imprecisely at times.

Progression is broadly followable with some linking devices, but paragraphing is weak, transitions are formulaic or misapplied, and idea flow within long stretches is mechanical.

There is a sufficient range of topic-related vocabulary and some idiomatic attempts, though word choice errors such as 'physically disable' and 'blessings' reduce precision.

A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, but frequent errors in agreement, articles, and verb forms sometimes impede meaning.

The response addresses both views, presents a clear conditional position, and develops main ideas with relevant examples, though development remains somewhat general and unevenly extended.

Progression is broadly clear with logical paragraphing, but cohesion relies on mechanical, formulaic linkers such as 'Firstly', 'Secondly' and 'And then', giving the argument a somewhat list-like flow.

Vocabulary is adequate for the topic with some appropriate items like 'portable computers' and 'stress level', but it is repetitive and occasionally imprecise, showing limited flexibility.

A mix of simple and complex structures is used with generally clear meaning, though frequent noticeable errors, including 'has negatively affected to', 'use is wisely' and pronoun inconsistencies, reduce accuracy.

The position is clear and consistently maintained, with main ideas relevant and partially developed through examples, though some points remain general and repetitively stated rather than fully extended.

The response has a broadly understandable sequence of benefits, a concession and a conclusion, but all the material is in one paragraph. Repeated claims and loosely connected sentences make it harder to identify and follow distinct central ideas.

Vocabulary is adequate for the topic with some attempts at less common items, but inaccuracies such as 'addicted effects' and 'casualty' and frequent repetition limit precision.

A mix of simple and complex structures is used with generally clear meaning, though errors in agreement, article use, and phrasing occur with some regularity without impeding communication.

The response discusses benefits and drawbacks and states a clear final opinion. The negative conclusion is supported by the discussion of health and family problems, but the overall position appears late and many points are listed rather than fully explained.

The sequence from benefits to drawbacks and a conclusion is followable, but the entire response is one paragraph. Frequent signposts create a list-like rhythm, and individual ideas need clearer grouping and fuller logical connections.

There is an adequate range of topic-related vocabulary, including phrases like family disruption and reading habit, though some collocations are imprecise, such as different poles of the world and refresh our knowledge.

A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, with meaning generally clear. Recurring article and verb-form errors reduce accuracy, including "overuse of computer" and "reading habit is declined".

A clear opinion is stated and supported with relevant examples, though the opposing viewpoint is addressed only briefly and ideas are somewhat unevenly developed.

Progression is generally followable, but organisation is mechanical, resembling a list of examples, and transitions between ideas are often weak or abrupt.

Vocabulary is adequate for the topic with some appropriate collocations like manual effort and computerised, but range is limited and occasionally imprecise.

A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, but frequent errors in sentence construction and phrasing, such as 'This makes complex searches or the access to a particular document', regularly reduce accuracy.

The essay fully answers the opinion question with a clear position, addresses the opposing view through a concession, and develops three relevant supporting ideas with examples.

The response follows an understandable sequence from a concession through three benefits to a conclusion. However, it is presented as one continuous paragraph, and mechanical signposting takes the place of clearly separated groups of ideas.

Vocabulary is adequate for discussing computers and includes some precise topic language. However, expressions such as "the computer using", "living surroundings" and "life quality" are awkward or imprecise, limiting consistent control of collocation.

Several complex structures are attempted and meaning is generally clear, but errors recur in articles, verb complements and uncountable nouns. Examples include "much easier life", "allow overseas students contact" and "numerous information".

The position is clear throughout and each main idea (business data, everyday transactions, communication, online shopping) is developed with relevant explanation, though the counterargument of complexity and stress is never engaged.

Progression is logical and paragraphing is clear, but cohesion relies on mechanical, formulaic linkers such as 'First of all' and 'Second of all' and some listing rather than integrated development.

Vocabulary is adequate for the topic with some natural collocations, but there are awkward or imprecise expressions such as 'money access machines' and 'in so easy way' that limit flexibility.

A range of structures is attempted, yet errors are fairly frequent, including tense slips ('computers provided', 'the world becomes smaller'), spelling ('trough'), and article or agreement problems, though meaning stays clear.

The response addresses the opinion task directly with a clear position and develops several relevant main ideas with concrete examples, though some support is generic and the counterargument is only lightly treated.

Ideas progress logically across well-separated areas with a clear introduction and conclusion, but cohesion is sometimes mechanical and semicolon use produces overly long, loosely linked sentences.

Vocabulary is sufficiently wide and mostly precise for the topic, including phrases like cumbersome task and revolutionised, though slips such as loved once and without spending the extra penny reduce precision.

A range of complex structures is attempted and meaning is generally clear, but frequent errors in subject-verb agreement, word forms, and comma-spliced constructions are noticeable throughout.