选择学习科学的学生不够多

Both questions are addressed with a clear position and relevant ideas, but the claims about self-learning preserving expertise and diversification reducing unemployment need fuller support. The response is ten words below the minimum length.

Ideas progress logically across well-managed paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices used naturally, with only occasional slight mechanical linking such as repeated 'Additionally'.

Vocabulary is flexible and reasonably precise, including phrases like 'interdisciplinary teams' and 'oversaturated fields', with only minor wordiness rather than noticeable inaccuracy.

A wide range of sentence structures is used with generally strong control, and frequent error-free sentences dominate, with only rare minor slips in concision and agreement.

Both questions are fully addressed with a clear position, well-developed main ideas, and relevant supporting examples, though the slightly under-length response limits the depth of development.

Ideas progress logically through clear paragraphing and a range of cohesive devices used naturally, with only occasional mechanical linking.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with some less common items such as 'far-reaching consequences' and 'saturate those job markets', alongside generally accurate usage.

A variety of complex structures is used with good control, including relative clauses and participial phrases. Sentences are generally accurate; the comparative construction could be made more concise without treating the original as an error.

The response addresses both questions directly with a clear position, relevant main ideas about difficulty, job competition, workforce imbalance, and skill shortages, and reasonably developed support, though some points remain generally explained.

Ideas progress logically across well-structured paragraphs with varied cohesive devices, although a few transitions, such as the conclusion's compressed summary, feel slightly mechanical.

The response uses a sufficient range of topic-appropriate vocabulary, including phrases like 'scarcity of human resources' and 'workforce imbalance,' with some awkward or imprecise collocations such as 'factored in a lot of students.'

Complex structures include relative clauses, concessions and a conditional. Control is uneven: “the number ... are” has an agreement error, “researches” misuses an uncountable noun, and “in future workforce” omits a determiner. The research comparison is also malformed, although the intended meaning remains recoverable.

The response addresses both parts of the question clearly, presents relevant causes and effects, and supports main ideas with examples, though development occasionally stays at a fairly general level.

Ideas are logically organised into clear paragraphs with effective use of cohesive devices, and progression throughout is generally easy to follow.

The response shows a good range of topic-related vocabulary and natural collocations, with only occasional repetition and slightly imprecise phrasing.

A variety of sentence structures is used with good control. The missing determiner in 'increases burden' is a minor error; 'which requires' can correctly refer to the preceding situation as a whole.

Both parts of the question are fully addressed with a clear position, relevant main ideas, and extended explanation, though some effects are asserted rather than concretely evidenced.

Ideas progress logically through clear paragraphing and effective cohesive devices, with only occasionally mechanical sequencing such as formulaic linking in the final paragraph.

Vocabulary is wide, precise, and natural for the topic, with rare lapses in collocational fit such as 'tepidity' and 'disintegrate' used slightly forcedly.

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