为环保减少或停止乘坐飞机

The question is directly answered with a clear position and relevant supporting ideas, but the response is 40 words short of the minimum, which limits the depth of development.

Ideas progress logically across four well-managed paragraphs with appropriate cohesive devices such as 'However', 'Even so', and 'Additionally'.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, featuring phrases like 'carbon-intensive', 'greenhouse gas emissions', and 'mitigated', with only a stray spacing error.

A range of complex structures, including concessive clauses and relative clauses, is used accurately with only very minor punctuation issues.

The essay addresses all parts of the question with a clear, consistent position, and main ideas are developed with relevant explanation, though support remains somewhat general and the final recommendation slightly overstates the argument.

Ideas progress logically across clear paragraphs, but cohesion depends heavily on repeated formulaic connectors such as therefore and as a result.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and topic-appropriate, covering emissions, tourism, and economic effects with some precision, though phrase choices occasionally show minor imprecision such as heavily on-air travel.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, with only minor errors such as the missing apostrophe in individuals ability that do not impede communication.

The response addresses all parts of the question with a clear position, balanced coverage of environmental benefits and individual and business disadvantages, and relevant supporting examples, though some claims rely on assertion and the conclusion softens the stated stance slightly.

Ideas progress logically through well-structured paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices, and referencing is generally clear, with only occasional mechanical linking such as 'Apart from this'.

Vocabulary is flexible and generally precise, with natural phrasing such as 'huge swaths of animal habitats' and 'see their sales shrink', showing sophisticated resource with occasional contextual imprecision, notably 'offset' for a direct reduction in emissions.

A wide range of complex structures is used with generally good control, including conditionals, relative clauses, and participle phrases, though occasional phrasing is slightly strained without impeding meaning.

The response directly answers the question with a clear position that benefits outweigh disadvantages, and main ideas are developed with relevant explanation, although the treatment of disadvantages for individuals and businesses is relatively brief.

Ideas progress logically across clear paragraphs with effective cohesive devices and referencing, though transitions such as 'That said' and 'In any case' occasionally soften rather than sharpen the line of reasoning.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, with natural academic collocations like 'negligible', 'modest figure', and 'weigh financial gains', and only rare, minor imprecision.

A wide range of complex structures is used with good control and punctuation accuracy, with errors being infrequent and non-impeding.

The response addresses the question directly with a clear position that environmental benefits outweigh the downsides, and main ideas are developed with relevant examples, though the treatment of disadvantages is somewhat less extended than the environmental case.

Ideas progress logically across clear paragraphs with effective cohesive devices and referencing, with only occasional slight strain such as the loosely signposted transition into the environmental-impact paragraph.

Vocabulary is wide and precise, including natural collocations such as outsized carbon footprint, market signal, and behavioral change, with only very occasional less idiomatic phrasing.

A wide range of complex structures is used with flexibility and generally strong accuracy, with rare minor errors that do not impede communication.

The essay fully addresses the question, states a clear position, develops both disadvantages and environmental benefits with relevant examples, and reaches a reasoned conclusion with a practical recommendation.

Progression is logical and paragraphs are well organised, with clear linking throughout, though some connectives feel slightly mechanical and formulaic in places.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as greenhouse gases, financial pressure, and environmental degradation, supporting accurate expression of both topics with only minor stylistic repetition.

A wide range of complex structures is used with strong control and accuracy, and errors are rare and non-impeding, such as a stray spacing issue and slightly heavy subordination.

The response maintains a clear position and discusses environmental benefits and disadvantages for both individuals and businesses, with developed examples of slower journeys and reduced career mobility. However, the freight example assumes that reduced personal flying removes companies' access to air transport without explaining that link, and several environmental claims lack adequate support.

Ideas progress logically across well-structured paragraphs with varied and generally effective cohesive devices, although occasional overstatement and a slightly abrupt counterargument transition slightly reduce the seamlessness of progression.

Vocabulary is wide, flexible, and mostly precise, with sophisticated items such as 'curtail', 'ameliorate', and 'eclipsed', though some collocations and phrases are slightly unnatural or overwrought.

A wide range of complex structures is used with flexibility and accuracy, including effective subordinate clauses, apposition, and parallelism, with only rare minor errors that do not impede meaning.