通过减少出行需求缓解城市交通

The response presents a clear disagreement and relevant main ideas with examples, but development is uneven and some content, such as organizational cost savings, only loosely supports the argument about reducing traffic.

Paragraphing is logical and linking devices guide the reader, though cohesion is at times mechanical and some ideas within paragraphs connect imperfectly.

There is adequate range of vocabulary with some attempts at less common items, but several inaccurate collocations and word choices, such as 'vehicles inroads' and 'hamper the violators', affect precision.

A mix of simple and complex sentence structures is used with reasonable accuracy, but errors in verb forms and constructions, such as 'they also it help to reduce', are noticeable.

The response clearly supports reducing travel and gives relevant examples of remote work and local services. However, the claim that this is the only viable solution needs fuller justification. The school-transport example also concerns sharing transport rather than eliminating the need for a journey.

The ideas have a recognisable sequence, but the entire response is one continuous paragraph. Remote work, nearby services and school transport need clearer grouping, and some long sentences combine several points in ways that make progression harder to follow.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, with apt items such as traffic gridlocks, deter and digitalised, and only occasional imprecision such as the opening framing of congestion as a curse.

Complex structures are used with generally good control, including relative and conditional clauses. Occasional noun-phrase problems remain, such as the bare singular "help desk" in the list of services to be digitalised. Most meaning is clear despite these minor inaccuracies.

The response directly addresses the extent-of-agreement question with a clear position, develops main ideas with relevant support and a cited example, and reaches an appropriate conclusion, though some supporting claims are asserted rather than fully extended.

The ideas have an understandable sequence, but the entire essay is one paragraph. The discussion of reduced travel, its limitations and alternative measures needs clearer grouping. The announcement that the reasons "require thorough analysis" also creates an awkward transition.

Vocabulary has sufficient range for the topic, including "commuters", "carpooling" and "eco-friendly transportation". Some wording is imprecise, such as saying urbanisation brought the term "traffic congestion" into existence and using the broad expression "bad traffic".

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, though noticeable errors such as 'the fewer traffic jam they create' and some article omissions recur without seriously impeding meaning.

The response addresses all parts of the task with a clear, consistent position and relevant supporting ideas, though some arguments remain somewhat general in development.

Ideas are logically organised with clear progression across paragraphs and a range of cohesive devices used naturally, despite occasional mechanical linking.

The response uses a sufficient range of topic-appropriate vocabulary such as 'traffic congestion', 'public conveyance' and 'eco-friendly mode of transport', with some less precise phrasing.

A variety of complex structures are used with generally good control, with errors such as 'discourage many to use' and 'all professionals can not' that rarely impede meaning.

The response maintains clear agreement and considers road building and public transport before advocating reduced travel. However, its dismissal of those alternatives relies on broad claims about feasibility and pollution. These claims need fuller support to justify the absolute position that demand reduction is the only solution.

Ideas are logically organised with clear progression across paragraphs and a range of cohesive devices used naturally, despite some repetition of the prompt's ideas across body paragraphs.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as transportation infrastructure and work-life balance, though occasionally formulaic phrasing limits full sophistication.

A range of complex structures is used with generally good control and clear meaning. The combination "used to work ... and stayed" can coordinate two past-tense verb phrases and is not itself a grammatical error.

The response addresses all parts of the task with a clear, consistent position of partial disagreement, supported by developed main ideas about remote options, freedom of choice, and alternative transport solutions.

Ideas progress logically across clear paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices used naturally, though some linking phrases are slightly formulaic.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise for the topic, featuring natural collocations such as rush hours, social contact, and road based, with only minor imprecision.

A variety of complex structures, including concessions and conditionals, is used with good control, though recurring lowercase sentence openings are a noticeable mechanical flaw.

The response addresses all parts of the task with a clear position of partial disagreement, develops relevant main ideas across several paragraphs, and supports them with examples such as Tokyo and New York, though some claims are asserted rather than fully extended.

Ideas progress logically from position statement through distinct alternative solutions to a clear conclusion, with mostly accurate cohesive devices, although linking like 'thereby' and 'on the contrary' is occasionally used loosely.

Vocabulary shows good range and flexibility for the topic, including phrases such as 'alleviate traffic congestion', 'mass transit', and 'priority parking spaces', with only minor imprecision such as 'improved their traffic condition'.

A range of complex structures is used with generally good control. Occasional errors include the unnecessary comma after "but" in the conclusion and the comparison in "Another effective strategy ... than asking people to stay home", which needs a comparative form such as "more effective".