航班激增与航空旅行是否应加税

The response addresses all parts of the question and states a clear position on taxation with a supporting example, but several ideas are underdeveloped or tangential, such as the in-flight view and meal charges, limiting full extension of main ideas.

Progression is broadly clear with a discernible structure and conclusion, but cohesion is mechanical, relying on repeated basic linkers like 'Besides' and 'Further', and some transitions such as 'In opposite' are inaccurate.

Vocabulary is adequate for the topic with some appropriate items like 'jetlag' and 'commercial purposes', but there are noticeable word-choice errors ('airliners', 'Place crash', 'having the flights have') and limited flexibility in expression.

A mix of simple and complex sentence forms is attempted, but errors are frequent, including faulty structures like 'there are some disadvantages have been found' and 'When you will be on board', though meaning is mostly recoverable.

The response addresses all parts of the task, presenting clear advantages, disadvantages, and a firmly stated disagreement with higher flight taxes, with ideas developed through relevant explanation, though some supporting points remain brief.

The response follows a recognisable sequence from benefits to drawbacks and taxation, but the whole essay is one continuous paragraph. These distinct parts need clearer grouping, and repeated listing phrases make some transitions mechanical.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and mostly precise for the topic, with good use of terms like globalisation, greenhouse effect, and eco-friendly, despite occasional unnatural collocations such as employment scopes.

A range of complex structures is used with reasonable control, but recurring errors in subject-verb agreement, articles, and phrasing slightly reduce accuracy.

The response discusses advantages and disadvantages of flights and explores consequences of higher taxes. However, it does not state whether the writer supports increased taxation. The conclusion returns to the effects of air travel without resolving that second question.

Ideas are organised into logical paragraphs with clear progression and appropriate cohesive devices, although linking is at times mechanical and the taxation paragraph mixes benefits and drawbacks closely together.

Vocabulary has sufficient range for the topic, including "greenhouse gases", "global connectivity" and "economic inequality". Some phrasing lacks precision, such as describing the expansion of aviation as bringing "upsides and disadvantages in terms of its environmental and societal impacts", without making the affected outcomes clear.

A range of complex structures is used with generally good control, but frequent minor slips, such as 'the interchange between nations and even people who come... to travel', slightly reduce accuracy.

The response addresses both parts of the task, presents a clear position on taxation, and develops main ideas such as business efficiency, tourism, and pollution with relevant supporting explanation, though some support is asserted rather than fully developed.

Ideas are organised logically across clear paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices, though some linking is mechanical and occasional overlong sentences slightly reduce smooth progression.

There is a wide and ambitious vocabulary range, but frequent unnatural or inaccurate usage, such as 'gnawed off to half', 'detrimental to the human diaspora', and 'shouldn't actualize', limits precision.

A variety of complex structures, including conditionals, relative clauses, and inversion, is used with generally good control, and errors are mostly minor and non-impeding despite occasional awkward constructions.

The response addresses both questions, develops main ideas on time saving, tourism, the economy, and environmental harm, and gives a clear, supported position against higher taxes.

Ideas are organised into clear paragraphs with logical progression, though linking is occasionally mechanical or slightly misused, as in the taxation paragraph.

Vocabulary has a reasonable range for the topic, including tourism, exports and noise pollution. Some expressions are imprecise, such as "pay solely for a brief period of time travelling", where the intended idea is spending time, and "value of transportation", where the argument concerns cost.

A range of complex structures is used, but some clause constructions are inaccurate. Examples include "to which customers will suffer" and "It could demotivate people and that they may decide", whose second coordinated clause has an unnecessary "that". Omitting "that" after "the greatest benefit ... is" is permissible.

Both questions are addressed with a clear position and relevant, if not deeply extended, support, though the response is slightly under the 250-word minimum.

Ideas progress logically across well-managed paragraphs with effective use of cohesive devices, though linking is occasionally mechanical.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and topic-appropriate, with some precise collocations such as 'carbon emissions' and 'sustainable aviation fuel', but range is not consistently sophisticated.

A variety of complex structures is used with good control and only minor, non-impeding errors.