动物灭绝是自然过程，该不该阻止

The response clearly disagrees with the statement, presents two relevant developed reasons with examples, and reaches a consistent conclusion, though the second argument is less fully elaborated.

The opposing view and the writer’s two reasons are signposted clearly. Progression becomes less smooth when the habitat-destruction point and the resort example are separated by a line break, and some linking is mechanical.

Vocabulary shows a useful topic-specific range, including “poaching”, “endangered animals” and “natural habitats”. Precision is less consistent in expressions such as “medicinal factors” and the sweeping prediction that all species face “extermination”.

A good range of structures is used, including conditionals, a cleft sentence, and relative clauses, but noticeable errors such as the garbled sentence about luxurious resorts reduce accuracy.

The essay directly addresses the question and develops arguments about natural selection and competing priorities, while acknowledging ecological risks. Its qualified stance is clear initially, but the final call to halt all related projects is more absolute, and the serious counterargument is not fully weighed against the reasons for non-intervention.

The argument progresses clearly from natural selection to competing priorities, then a concession and conclusion. Linking expressions signal these stages, although the ecological risks in the concession are not clearly reconciled with the final recommendation to end all related projects.

Vocabulary is flexible and largely precise, using topic-appropriate terms such as natural selection, food chain, and biodiversity, with some occasionally awkward collocations like downgrade people's living standards.

A good range of complex structures, including conditionals and relative clauses, is used with generally strong accuracy; errors are minor and rarely impede understanding.

The position is clear throughout, with relevant reasons concerning human responsibility, livelihoods and biodiversity. The coral example provides substantial support, while the science argument and the distinction between natural and human-caused extinction could be developed further.

The argument progresses logically through signposted sections on human responsibility, human dependence and biodiversity. Referencing generally supports this progression, although some transitions are formulaic and the final argument partly overlaps with the preceding one.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as 'inextricable relationship', 'overexploitation of natural resources', and 'interdependencies', despite rare word-choice slips like 'animal pieces' and 'habit'.

A wide range of complex structures is used with generally strong control, including subordinate clauses and passive constructions. Local weaknesses include the bare singular noun “ecosystem” in the introduction and the comma joining independent clauses before “otherwise” in the conclusion.