物种消失与其他环境问题

Both perspectives are discussed with relevant, developed examples, and a clear opinion is maintained throughout, though the position is expressed somewhat indirectly rather than fully extended.

Ideas progress logically across clear paragraphs with effective cohesive devices, though phrases like 'On the contrary' are used slightly mechanically to signal contrast.

Vocabulary is flexible and largely precise, with good collocations such as 'ecological balance' and 'cascading effects', alongside occasional less natural phrasing.

A range of complex structures is used with good control, including subordinate clauses and participial constructions, with only minor, non-impeding errors.

The response addresses both views clearly, develops each with relevant explanation and examples, and presents a consistent, nuanced position that the problems are interrelated rather than ranking one above the other.

Ideas progress logically across paragraphs with a clear introduction, view-by-view discussion, and conclusion, though some transitions between ideas are simple or slightly mechanical.

Vocabulary is flexible and often precise, using phrases such as devastating trend, massive potential ramifications, and wreaking havoc, with occasional awkward or loosely worded expressions.

A good range of sentence structures is used with frequent complex forms, including relative clauses, conditionals and contrasts. Grammar is generally controlled; the more significant limitations concern the precision of claims and the development of causal reasoning.

The response addresses all parts of the task, presents a clear position from the introduction, and develops both views with relevant explanation and examples, though the conclusion qualifies the stance somewhat.

The argument progresses through clearly organised paragraphs, with examples and consequences linked explicitly. The closing call to address all problems could connect more directly to the earlier claim that pollution and climate change are more urgent.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible for the topic, with phrases like 'unbalanced underwater ecosystems' and 'on the brink of destruction', but some collocations are slightly imprecise and word choice is at times formulaic.

The essay uses subordinate clauses, relative clauses and passive constructions with generally good control. The adjective form in agriculture purposes needs correction; some longer constructions are cumbersome, but the coordinated water and soil pollution subject does not demonstrate a clear agreement error.

The response addresses all parts of the task, presenting both views with a consistent and clearly stated opinion, though the first view is covered somewhat less fully than the second.

Ideas progress logically across well-managed paragraphs with effective cohesive devices, although links within some sentences are occasionally mechanical.

Vocabulary is flexible and largely precise, with natural collocations such as 'cascading effects' and 'existential threats', alongside a few awkward or overblown phrases.

A wide range of complex structures is used with generally good control, though occasional awkward constructions like 'prioritising solving the climate change' reduce precision.

The essay addresses both views, presents a clear position throughout, and supports it with relevant explanations and examples, though development remains somewhat general rather than extended in depth.

The response is logically organised with clear progression across four paragraphs, but some cohesion devices are mechanical or slightly inaccurate, such as the use of 'on the contrary'.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible for precise meaning, including terms like 'biodiversity', 'ripple effect', and 'far-reaching consequences', though there is noticeable repetition of key phrases such as 'pressing' and 'loss of species'.

The essay uses a range of complex structures with generally good control, including relative clauses, conditionals and causal clauses. Most sentences are error-free; climate changes is grammatically possible, although the singular term would refer more consistently to the broad environmental process.

The essay discusses both views and maintains a clear preference for protecting species. However, the tsunami example does not establish the asserted climate-change connection, and the comparison of priorities needs fuller support.

Ideas are logically organised with clear paragraphing and generally effective cohesive devices, though cohesion is at times slightly mechanical and transitions between examples and claims could be more varied.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as incremental rises in temperature, fragile ecosystems, and irreversible extinction, showing only rare minor slips.

A range of complex structures is used with generally good control, including relative clauses and concessive clauses. The plural subject “incremental rises” incorrectly takes “has increased”; punctuation and compound-adjective hyphenation also need attention.

The response directly addresses both views, presents a clear personal position, and supports ideas with relevant examples such as the dodo, medicinal plants, and polar bears, with only slightly uneven development of the second view.

Ideas progress logically through identifiable sections, and cohesive devices generally make their relationships clear. The transition from calling global warming a far wider problem to rejecting a simple ranking could be explained more explicitly.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as 'safeguard the survival', 'runaway heating', and 'a holistic approach', and only rare imprecision.

The response handles complex sentences, relative clauses, participial phrases and causal relationships with generally strong control. The long opening interruption and final multi-clause sentence could be streamlined for readability; clear grammatical errors are rare.

The response covers all parts of the task, discussing both views with developed, well-supported ideas and a clear, consistent personal position throughout.

Progression is logical and paragraphing is clear, with conventional but appropriate signposts for the two views. The long third paragraph could separate climate change from pollution to give each supporting argument clearer focus.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations like 'cascading effects', 'vital pollinators', and 'widespread threat' conveying ideas accurately.

A wide range of complex structures is used with strong control, including concessions, relative clauses and participial phrases. Sentences are consistently accurate and varied, with no clear recurring grammatical error.