21世纪与以往世纪的生活质量对比

The response presents a clear, consistent position of agreement and develops it with relevant supporting ideas and examples across health, transport, and communication.

Paragraphing is logical and progression is clear, though some cohesive devices such as 'To embark on' and 'Thus, obviously' are used in a slightly mechanical way.

There is a good range of vocabulary with some flexibility and less common items like 'averting threats' and 'versatile', alongside occasional awkward collocations such as 'manifold reasons'.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control. Errors include the singular subject in “the fatality rate ... were” and missing commas around the internet’s non-defining relative clause.

The response maintains a clear disagreement and considers material advantages before discussing environmental and mental-health costs. Some historical comparisons remain unsupported, and the conclusion needs to explain why those costs offset the conceded gains.

Ideas progress logically across well-managed paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices such as 'Granted' and 'Nevertheless', though cohesion is occasionally mechanical and one paragraph loses its closing punctuation.

There is a wide and mostly precise vocabulary range ('myriad of employment prospects', 'market volatility', 'taking a toll'), with only occasional awkward phrasing such as 'ones would be inferior'.

Relative and subordinate clauses show a range of complex structures. Errors include the standalone pronoun “ones”, present-tense “tend” for people in the past, and missing or incomplete punctuation.

The essay addresses the question with a clear qualified position, develops relevant main ideas on both benefits and drawbacks of modern life, and reaches a consistent conclusion, though some points remain generally rather than deeply supported.

The overall sequence of benefits, limitations and conclusion is understandable, but the supplied text lacks clear paragraph grouping. Some single line breaks separate claims from their explanations, and repeating “On the one hand” weakens the signposting of the opposing side.

Vocabulary covers the topic well, including “life expectancy” and “wealth disparity”, but combinations such as “life convenience” and “the reason for this school of thought” are awkward. Repeated framing phrases also reduce concision.

Complex structures, including concessive and relative clauses, are generally controlled. Noticeable lapses include “not every individual ... have access”, the capitalized “It” after an introductory comma, and the undetermined singular “relationship” when discussing social connections generally.

The response gives a clear, consistently maintained position and develops two relevant reasons with examples. However, the claims about eliminating chores and universally fair modern pay overgeneralise the comparison with earlier centuries.

Ideas progress logically across well-organised paragraphs with effective linking devices, though cohesion within some sentences is occasionally slightly mechanical.

The response uses a broad vocabulary range, including “disposable income” and “basic necessities”. Precision is uneven in expressions such as “take the responsibility” for appliances and “facilitating their art appreciation skills”.

Complex sentences are generally well controlled. The paired infinitives after “not only” could be more parallel, while “far more superior than” is an incorrect comparative construction that needs “far superior to”.

The position is clear and consistent, with relevant examples of medical and digital advances. Some causal links remain general, particularly how information access improves decisions and how each medical advance produces the listed benefits; more explicit comparison with earlier centuries would deepen the support.

Ideas progress logically across well-managed paragraphs with effective cohesive devices and clear referencing throughout.

Vocabulary is wide and precise, with natural collocations such as 'unprecedented progress', 'democratized access', and 'minimally invasive surgery' used flexibly for the topic.

A variety of complex structures, including relative clauses and parallel constructions, is used with good control and only rare, non-impeding errors.