媒体应多报道好消息

The essay supports the value of positive reporting while explaining why negative news remains necessary. Relevant reasons and the pandemic example develop this balanced view, though the precise extent of agreement with increasing good-news coverage could be clearer.

Progression is logical across well-organised paragraphs, and cohesive devices such as 'on the one hand', 'moreover' and 'conversely' are used flexibly, though a few transitions and references are slightly mechanical.

There is a good range of less common vocabulary, including 'disseminated', 'benevolence' and 'immersing'. Imprecise collocations such as 'attributes significantly to their success' and 'brighten their prosperity' sometimes reduce clarity.

A variety of complex structures, including conditionals and relative clauses, are handled with generally good control, with only occasional errors or awkward phrasing that do not impede communication.

The response maintains a clear position and develops two relevant reasons with concrete examples. However, the air-crash example needs a clearer link to how positive reporting would help, while the Flappy Bird example needs to distinguish the effects of media coverage from the success itself.

Ideas progress logically through a clear introduction, two organised body paragraphs, and a conclusion, with generally effective cohesion that is at times slightly mechanical or over-signposted.

Vocabulary is sufficiently wide and precise, including items such as 'society's watchdog', 'collective fear', and 'contagious', though occasional awkward collocations like 'dedicate more to positive news' reduce precision.

A good range of complex structures is used with generally accurate control, but some errors such as 'the more good news is worth reporting' and slightly strained constructions are noticeable.

The response addresses the task directly with a clear agreement position, relevant main ideas, and supporting examples, though some points are extended more fully than others.

Progression is logical across a clear paragraph structure with effective linking devices, although a few transitions and idea connections are slightly mechanical.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible with some precise collocations such as 'distort readers' perception of reality' and 'instilled fear', alongside occasional awkward phrasing like 'moral courses of action'.

A range of sentence structures is used with generally good control, including complex forms, with only minor errors such as stray spacing before punctuation.

The response directly answers the question with a clear, consistent agreement position and two relevant lines of argument. Examples support the discussion, although the Scandinavian generalisation and some causal claims need more precise grounding.

Ideas progress logically within and across paragraphs, with effective use of cohesive devices and clear paragraphing, while cohesive references remain natural rather than mechanical.

The essay demonstrates a wide and flexible vocabulary, using precise terms such as sensationalism, altruism, and pro-social behavior naturally, with only minor repetition around the topic of positive stories.

A broad range of complex structures, including relative clauses, when-clauses and varied subordination, is used with flexibility and accuracy. Errors are rare and do not impede communication.