大学男女生录取人数应否相等

The position is stated clearly and supported with two main reasons, but some ideas are underdeveloped or confusingly expressed, such as the muddled discrimination example and the contradiction between ensuring empowerment and eliminating discrimination.

The essay follows a broadly clear progression with paragraph-level organisation, though cohesion is at times mechanical and referencing or logical links within paragraphs occasionally obscure the message.

There is an adequate range of vocabulary for the topic, but errors in word choice and collocation, such as 'gender discrimination' for equality and 'gender ration', reduce precision at points.

A mix of simple and complex sentence forms is used with some flexibility, yet frequent errors in articles, agreement, and structure, such as 'an opposite picture exists' and 'in every stages', are noticeable though meaning generally survives.

The response presents a clear position throughout and supports it with a relevant merit-based argument, though the first body paragraph partially contradicts the writer's stance and ideas are unevenly developed.

Ideas are arranged in coherent paragraphs with some cohesive devices, but progression within paragraphs is sometimes illogical and referencing and linking are occasionally mechanical or faulty.

Vocabulary is adequate for the task with some attempts at less common expression, but there are noticeable errors in collocation and word choice such as 'treated inferior' and 'the only criteria'.

A mix of simple and complex sentence forms is used, but frequent comma splices, run-on sentences, and agreement errors reduce accuracy and occasionally impede clarity.

The position of complete agreement is clearly stated, main ideas about fairness, talent development, and stereotype effects are relevant and supported, though some points, such as the counterargument paragraph, remain briefly developed.

Ideas progress logically through clearly separated paragraphs with appropriate cohesive devices, although some linkers such as 'Also' and 'But,' are used mechanically and one contrast is not fully resolved.

Vocabulary is generally flexible and topic-appropriate, with phrases like 'gender-equitable education systems' and 'harmful gender stereotypes', though occasional imprecision, such as 'follow their skills', reduces precision.

A variety of complex structures, including conditionals and relative clauses, are used with generally good control, with only minor errors in phrasing and punctuation that do not impede understanding.

The essay addresses the question directly with a clear position, develops relevant main ideas about merit and differing preferences, and supports them with examples, though some claims are asserted rather than fully evidenced.

Ideas progress logically through clear paragraphing and a range of cohesive devices, with generally smooth progression within and between paragraphs.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, including items like 'detrimental' and 'ramifications', though some highly informal or inflammatory word choices reduce the academic register.

A wide range of complex structures, including conditionals and relative clauses, is used with flexibility and generally good control, with only minor errors.

The position is fully developed and consistently maintained, with each paragraph advancing a distinct, well-supported reason for the disagreement and a clear concluding restatement.

Ideas progress logically across cohesive paragraphs with effective referencing and linking, though transitions are somewhat predictable and the argument follows a conventional rather than nuanced structure.

Vocabulary is precise and natural for the topic, including phrases like 'equal proportions,' 'base admission on gender,' and 'according to their qualifications,' with no noticeable errors, though the range is solid rather than exceptionally wide.

Sentence structures are varied and consistently accurate, combining complex conditionals, relative clauses, and modality with full flexibility and only rare minor slips.