人们抗拒变化的原因及变化为何是积极的

The response addresses only the first question in depth, while the second question about why change is positive is reduced to a single undeveloped concluding sentence, so the task is only partially covered.

Ideas are organised into clear paragraphs with mostly logical progression and appropriate linkers, but the abrupt conclusion leaves the argument unbalanced and 'love risks' conflicts with the explanation of stability's appeal.

Vocabulary is generally adequate for the topic with some appropriate collocations such as 'feeling of security and stability', though there are spelling errors ('exampel', 'dijital', 'reguarded') and informal choices like 'not techy'.

Sentence forms are varied but frequent grammatical errors occur, including 'Although its inevitability', 'resists', 'know to doing things' and 'which can leads', sometimes straining the reader.

The essay answers both questions directly, maintains a clear position that change should be embraced, and develops each main idea with relevant explanation and examples, though the support remains somewhat general.

Ideas progress logically across well-structured paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices used naturally, and paragraphing is clear throughout.

Vocabulary is flexible and appropriate, with good collocations such as 'embrace new technologies' and 'self-growth', and only minimal imprecision.

A wide range of sentence structures is used with strong control, including complex and conditional forms, with only rare minor errors that do not impede communication.

Both questions are addressed with a clear position and relevant, extended examples, though some ideas remain general rather than fully developed.

Ideas progress logically across well-managed paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices, though some linking is mechanical and paragraphs stay at a predictable level of generality.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as 'catalyst for progress', 'dismantling discriminatory practices', and 'fosters resilience', and only minimal imprecision.

A wide range of complex structures is used with generally good control, though some sentences are long and subordination occasionally feels heavy.

Both questions are addressed with a clear position on change and relevant, well-expressed reasons, but the positive-effects question is developed more briefly and abstractly than the causes of resistance.

The essay progresses logically through distinct paragraphs with clear linking, though some connectives are repeated and transitions occasionally feel mechanical.

Vocabulary is wide and mostly natural, including precise collocations such as 'catalyst for development' and 'semblance of stability', with only slight over-reliance on formal abstractions.

A broad range of complex structures is used accurately and flexibly, with errors rare and non-impeding across the response.