竞争意识对个人的影响

The response addresses both questions with a relevant, qualified position that competition is positive but must be balanced, and it uses relevant examples, though some ideas remain underdeveloped.

Progression is broadly clear with some cohesive devices, but paragraphing is absent and transitions are occasionally mechanical, making the argument's flow uneven.

There is an adequate range of vocabulary with some attempts at less common expression, though errors such as 'cones and pros' and 'in all discipline' reduce precision.

A mix of simple and complex structures is used with some flexibility, but frequent errors in agreement, articles, and sentence boundaries occasionally impede clarity.

The response addresses both questions with a clear qualified position and relevant explanation and an Olympic example. However, the third body paragraph identifies unethical behaviour more fully than it explains the consequences for individuals.

Ideas progress logically through clear paragraphing and sequencing with effective contrast, although some transitions and the templated introduction and conclusion feel mechanical.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible with appropriate topic-related terms and idiomatic attempts, but some phrases such as 'pen down saying' and 'name and fame' are informal or memorized-sounding.

A range of complex structures is used with generally good control, and most errors, such as 'others achievements', are minor and do not impede understanding.

The essay addresses both parts of the task, presents a clear nuanced position that competitiveness is both positive and negative, and supports main ideas with relevant examples, though development occasionally remains general.

Ideas are logically organized into clear paragraphs with effective sequencing and cohesive devices, and progression across the argument is consistently easy to follow.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, with apt phrases such as 'unwilling to compromise' and 'unhealthy work environment', though some word choices remain fairly conventional.

A good range of sentence structures is used with generally accurate control, including complex forms, with only minor, non-impeding grammatical lapses.

The response fully addresses both parts of the question, presents a clear and sustained position that competitiveness is largely positive, and develops ideas with relevant explanation and concrete examples such as the Edison–Tesla rivalry.

Ideas progress logically across well-organized paragraphs with effective referencing and cohesive devices, though a few transitions like 'Besides that' feel mechanical and one connective phrase is slightly misused.

Vocabulary is generally flexible, with apt expressions such as “double-edged sword”, though “proliferate alternating current” and “spreading civilization” are less precise ways to describe the technological benefit.

The response uses varied complex structures, including conditionals and relative clauses, with good overall control. The shift from “would be” to “as is” and repeated spaces before punctuation are noticeable lapses.