动物物种灭绝是自然过程，人类无需阻止

The response intends to reject non-intervention and gives relevant examples of deforestation and pollution. However, the thesis confuses causes of extinction with reasons to prevent it, and the proposed actions and claimed health benefits need clearer explanation.

The argument progresses broadly clearly across paragraphs, but cohesion is at times mechanical or faulty, with linkers like 'To continue' and 'So the aforementioned reasons' connecting ideas imprecisely.

There is an attempt at less common vocabulary such as 'pertinent', 'elucidate' and 'biodiversity', but word choice is sometimes awkward or inaccurate, as in 'species that are getting extinct are naturally with them' and 'to low carbon emission'.

The response attempts varied complex sentences, but incomplete verb patterns and faulty clause construction sometimes obscure the meaning. Examples include “people ought to do”, “to low carbon emission” and “realize to save”.

The essay maintains clear disagreement and explains human responsibility and the ecological and cultural value of animals. Rhino poaching supports the argument, but the cow example needs a clearer link to the stated focus on wild animals, and the aesthetic reason needs further development.

Ideas progress logically across well-organized paragraphs with effective use of cohesive devices like 'however', 'in this regard', and 'for example', giving a clear overall progression.

The essay uses a good range of topic vocabulary, including “rampant poaching” and “natural habitats”. Some less precise expressions and spelling slips, including “our doings”, “bio-diversity” and “conse quence”, reduce the consistency of its lexical control.

The response uses a good range of complex structures, including relative and conditional clauses, with generally accurate control. The construction describing animals’ roles in ecological balance is awkward, and several spaces before punctuation need correction.

The response directly answers the question with a clear, consistently held disagreement, and develops three relevant main ideas with explanation and a supporting example, though development remains somewhat general rather than fully extended.

The argument follows a logical sequence, with transitions such as “Firstly”, “Another reason” and “Lastly”. However, the supplied text is one continuous paragraph with disruptive internal line breaks, and the concluding transition is incomplete.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise for the topic, with good use of terms like 'intrinsic value', 'pollinators', and 'ripple effect', with only rare imprecision.

A variety of complex sentence structures is used with generally good control, and errors are minor and non-impeding.

The response directly answers the question with a clear position of strong disagreement, develops main ideas about human-caused extinction and ecological and economic value, and supports them with relevant examples such as rhinos and pollinators.

The essay progresses logically through human causes and the ecological and economic reasons for conservation. Linking expressions guide the reader effectively, although the final pollination-cost sentence is unnecessarily cumbersome.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise for the topic, including phrases like 'on the brink of extinction', 'ecological balance', and 'interrelationship', with only minor imprecision such as 'hunted massively'.

A range of complex structures is used with generally good control, including conditionals ('should pollinators like bees be reduced') and relative clauses, with errors limited to minor slips that do not impede meaning.

The position is clear throughout, main ideas about human-driven habitat loss, hunting, and ecosystem roles are relevant and developed with examples, though some examples are slightly inaccurate or thinly supported.

Progression is logical with effective paragraphing and cohesive devices, though a few transitions are mechanical and there are minor lapses in referencing and punctuation.

There is a good range of topic-related vocabulary, including natural habitats, food chain and biodiversity. Precision is weakened by “critical to destroying”, the vague “vegetarian meat”, and the redundant “diversity of biodiversity”.

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

The response directly answers the question with a clearly stated, well-developed partial disagreement, supporting both sides with relevant explanation and a concrete extended example, and reaching a coherent conclusion.

The argument moves logically through an introduction, contrasting positions and a conclusion, with clear linking expressions. Some pronoun references are ambiguous, and the shark example contains an incorrectly joined pair of clauses.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as prohibitive amount, keystone species, and on the brink of extinction, and only rare awkward formulations.

A wide range of complex structures is used with generally good control, though occasional errors such as inconsistent agreement and as not to waste slightly reduce accuracy.

The essay clearly opposes non-intervention and develops human responsibility and ecological dependence with specific examples. However, the wildfire example needs a clearer human-causation link, and the rhino and marine examples need more careful qualification and explanation.

Ideas progress logically across well-structured paragraphs with appropriate linking devices, although a few connections, such as the shift between causes and consequences, are slightly mechanical.

Vocabulary is wide, precise, and natural, featuring terms like 'verge of extinction', 'dwindling', 'proliferation', and 'slump', with only minor awkward collocations such as 'food sources depletion'.

Complex structures are generally controlled, but “food sources depletion” needs a clearer noun construction and the final sentence joins independent clauses with a comma before “thus”. The possessive in “organisms’ lives” is grammatically possible, though cumbersome.

The essay directly addresses the question with a clear, qualified position, developing the distinction between natural and human-caused extinction with relevant reasoning and examples, though the solution paragraph is slightly general.

Ideas progress logically through a well-structured argument, with skilful and mostly seamless use of cohesive devices and clear paragraphing.

Vocabulary is flexible and wide-ranging, with effective expressions such as “decimating natural habitats” and “biological diversity”, though the comparison with nature is imprecise and “plunging ... to the brink” is awkward.

A wide range of grammatical structures, including conditional and relative clauses, is used with strong control. Sentences are generally accurate; the main local weaknesses concern lexical choices rather than demonstrated grammatical errors.

The response directly answers the question with a clear, consistent position, covers both the natural-extinction premise and the intervention debate, and develops each main idea with relevant, well-chosen examples such as the dinosaurs and crop pollination.

Ideas progress logically within clearly sequenced paragraphs, with cohesive devices used naturally and flexibly, and referencing is generally accurate throughout.

Vocabulary is wide and generally precise, with natural collocations such as 'ecosystem services', 'background levels' and 'food security'. A few expressions, including 'evolutionary cycle', could be more exact.

A wide range of complex structures, including relative clauses, concessive clauses and participle phrases, is used with strong control and accuracy across the response.