父母与学校：谁来教孩子做社会的好成员

Both views are addressed and a position is expressed, but the opinion is embedded confusingly and the arguments are only partly developed with limited support.

Progression is broadly clear and cohesive devices are used, though some connections are mechanical and paragraph logic is occasionally muddled, especially in the opening and second paragraph.

Vocabulary is adequate for the task with some appropriate collocations, but there are noticeable word-choice errors such as 'should be thought', 'charged of', and 'set parents free from this duty'.

A mix of simple and complex sentence forms is used with some flexibility, while frequent errors in agreement, article use, and phrasing slightly reduce overall accuracy.

Both views are addressed with a clear and consistent opinion, and ideas are extended with explanations and examples, though the cited studies are vague and evidence is somewhat generic.

The argument progresses logically across well-managed paragraphs with clear cohesion, although linking devices such as 'for this reason' are somewhat mechanical and repeated.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible for the topic, with good use of items like 'educational institutions' and 'exert influence', though occasional awkward collocations such as 'more trained' reduce precision.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, including conditionals and relative clauses, with only occasional minor errors such as tense slips that do not impede meaning.

The essay discusses both views clearly, presents a consistent personal opinion, and develops main ideas with relevant explanation and examples, though some support remains slightly general.

Ideas progress logically across well-managed paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices used naturally, despite minor mechanical lapses such as spacing and stray punctuation.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise with some natural collocations like 'undivided attention' and 'role models', though occasional awkward phrasing such as 'learn them from' reduces precision.

A variety of complex structures, including conditionals and relative clauses, are used with generally good control, with only occasional errors and awkward constructions that do not impede meaning.

The response addresses both views and states a clear, consistent opinion, with relevant examples, though the development of some supporting ideas is limited and slightly repetitive.

Ideas are logically organised across clear paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices, and progression is easy to follow, with only mildly mechanical transitions.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, including phrases like 'down-to-earth' and 'civic education', with only occasional awkward or imprecise collocation.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, and errors, such as occasional tense and phrasing slips, are minor and do not impede communication.

Both views are addressed, the position is clear and sustained throughout, and main ideas are developed with relevant, if somewhat localised, examples.

Paragraphing is logical and progression is clear, though some linking devices are used mechanically and transitions occasionally feel formulaic.

There is a good range of vocabulary with some flexibility, but occasional imprecision such as 'good parts of the community' and slightly informal phrasing limits the score.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, though minor errors and awkward constructions appear without impeding communication.