是否应禁止动物实验

The response addresses both views and gives a relevant opinion with some support, but ideas are unevenly developed and the argument sometimes drifts, such as the extended focus on legal complications of human trials.

Progression is generally clear with logical paragraphing and linking devices, though cohesion is at times mechanical and some referential links are loose or unclear.

There is a sufficient range of topic-related vocabulary and some less common items, but occasional imprecision and awkward collocations, such as 'the whole kind' and 'trouble-free', reduce accuracy.

A mix of sentence structures is used with generally good control, including complex forms, though there are noticeable errors in agreement and phrasing that do not seriously impede meaning.

Both views are addressed, a clear opinion is stated and maintained, and ideas are supported with examples, but the development is uneven and the suggestion of experimenting on condemned criminals is an implausible and ethically flawed extension that weakens the argument.

The response follows a logical four-part structure with cohesive devices such as 'To start with' and 'On the other side', though some linking and referencing, including the final 'Hence' and shifting referents, feel mechanical or imprecise.

There is a wide vocabulary range with attempts at less common items like 'irrefutable', 'supplanted' and 'detrimental', but errors in collocation and meaning, such as 'foster that', 'my certainty' and using 'flora' for animals, reduce precision.

A mix of complex structures is used with generally clear meaning, but there are noticeable grammatical errors, including subject-verb agreement ('the rest of the population argues... they are massive chance') and faulty passive forms ('should be ceased').

The essay addresses all parts of the task, presents both views with relevant support and examples, and states a clear, consistent opinion on banning animal experiments.

The overall debate and position can be followed, but the last paragraph combines an argument supporting experiments, the opposing view and the conclusion. These stages need separate grouping; the transition beginning However is abrupt within this mixed paragraph.

There is adequate range of vocabulary for the topic, including terms like painkillers, human trials, and in vitro testing, but noticeable slips such as 'a variety of sitting' and 'non-animals methods' reduce precision.

Complex sentences are attempted, but several clear errors reduce control. Testing them on animals first give needs the singular verb gives, good chance needs an article in that sentence, and scientific is used where a noun referring to people is needed. These examples show actual agreement, article and word-form problems.

Both views are addressed and a clear opinion is given in the conclusion, with relevant supporting ideas, though some arguments remain underdeveloped and the final position acknowledges tension without fully resolving it.

Ideas progress logically across clear paragraphs with effective cohesive devices, although a few transitions are mechanical and links within paragraphs are occasionally loose.

There is sufficient range for the topic, including ethical principles and assessing safety. Praising its need is an imprecise way to say that supporters consider animal testing necessary. Pressurizing the government is a valid British English expression, while drastic negative effects is understandable in this context.

A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, with only occasional minor errors in punctuation and phrasing that do not impede understanding.

Both views are discussed and a consistent position supports medical research. The opposition is explained before being rebutted, but the claim that vaccination would never have been possible without experiments on mice is absolute and unsupported within the response. The justification for overriding animal suffering would benefit from more careful reasoning.

Ideas progress logically with clear paragraphing and effective cohesive devices such as 'on the one hand' and 'on the other hand', with only occasional mechanical linking within sentences.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, featuring items like 'sentimental anthropomorphism', 'evolutionary success', and 'plights and plagues', with rare spelling slips that do not impede meaning.

A wide range of complex structures, including concessive forms and relative clauses, is generally controlled. The singular subject this belief needs stems rather than stem. This is a specific agreement lapse, rather than an established recurring pattern throughout the essay.

The response fully addresses both views and clearly presents and consistently maintains a nuanced personal position, with relevant, sufficiently developed supporting ideas.

Ideas are logically organised into well-sequenced paragraphs with cohesive devices used naturally, giving a clear progression throughout the response.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as 'a necessary evil' and 'cleared for human use', and only rare, non-impeding inaccuracy.

A wide range of complex sentence structures is used accurately and flexibly, with error-free sentences predominating and punctuation well controlled.