政府应否遏制自然资源过度使用

The response addresses the task directly with a clear, consistently maintained position, well-developed main ideas, and relevant supporting examples such as logging, fossil fuels, taxation, and alternative energy.

Ideas are logically organized across clear paragraphs with a logical progression, though some cohesive devices such as 'And then' and 'Besides that' are used mechanically.

The response shows an adequate range of vocabulary for the topic, but imprecise or awkward expressions such as “fumes of this energy”, “oil mining plants” and “recover the environment” reduce precision.

A mix of simple and complex sentence forms is used with some variety, but frequent errors in articles, verb forms, and adjective use, such as 'given negative impact the environment' and 'serious damaged', occasionally impede precision.

The position of supporting government discouragement of overuse is clear, relevant examples like deforestation and property development are provided, and the conclusion answers the question, though some ideas remain underdeveloped and the framing of individual versus government duty is only briefly addressed.

Ideas progress broadly logically from problem to causes to solutions, but cohesion is at times mechanical, with repeated linking devices and some abrupt shifts between sentences that reduce the flow of the argument.

There is sufficient topic vocabulary, including “exploiting”, “legislation” and “detrimental”. However, repeated use of “dire” and awkward combinations such as “take financial benefits”, “disseminating awareness” and “environment safety” reduce precision.

The response uses simple and complex structures with generally clear meaning. Errors include the missing possessive in “people demands”, a missing closing comma in the deforestation relative clause, and missing determiners or plural forms in “individual’s duty” and “preemptive measure”.

The response addresses the question directly, presents a clear position supporting government action with the qualification of shared responsibility, and develops main ideas with relevant examples, though some points are repetitively elaborated rather than extended.

Paragraphing is logical and progression is broadly clear with a conventional conclusion, but cohesion is somewhat mechanical and a few transitions and references are loosely managed.

There is an adequate range of topic vocabulary, including “imprudent” and “devastating aftereffects”, but inaccurate combinations such as “fulfil our luxury”, “the mass people” and “look after the betterment” reduce precision.

A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, but errors in agreement and verb forms, such as People changes and the government of a country sworn to look after, are frequent enough to lower accuracy, though meaning remains mostly clear.