靠国际合作解决紧迫问题

The essay addresses the task with a clear partial-agreement position and relevant main ideas, but the development is uneven, and some examples (Canada and ozone depletion, the China coronavirus point) do not clearly support the claims they accompany.

Progression is broadly clear with paragraph-level organisation, but cohesion is often mechanical and referencing is sometimes confusing, so the reader must work to follow connections between ideas and examples.

There is some attempt at less common vocabulary such as 'elucidated' and 'sovereign state', but awkward and inaccurate collocations like 'wisely facilitation' and 'do impart that' limit precision and flexibility.

A mix of simple and complex structures is used, but errors in article use, contractions, passive voice and verb coordination sometimes obscure meaning, as in “its still”, “have to carefully supervise” and “even turning”.

The essay presents a position and develops arguments for and against climate cooperation, but several broad claims need support. The extension to other urgent problems and the distinction between universal agreements and limited international partnerships remain underdeveloped.

Paragraphing is logical and progression is easy to follow, with cohesive devices used naturally, apart from a slightly weak transition in the counterargument paragraph.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as 'align the priorities', 'imminent global catastrophe' and 'like-minded nations', and only minor slips.

A wide range of structures, including conditionals and complex sentences, is generally used accurately. Occasional problems include the nonparallel grouping of nations “in the Middle East” and “in developing countries”.

The response clearly favours international cooperation and discusses relevant opposing considerations. However, its degree of agreement with “only” remains implicit, and the links from domestic political resistance to effectiveness and from climate-related migration to an international solution need fuller development.

Clear paragraphs and contrastive links make the discussion easy to follow. The conclusion maintains support for cooperation, but the relationship between its concession about national effectiveness and its recommendation of international action remains insufficiently explained.

Vocabulary is varied and generally effective, including “transnational cooperation”, “legislation” and “interconnected”. Some wording is awkward or underspecified, such as “swathes of economic refugees”; the label for the migrants also needs explanation in this climate-related example.

A wide range of complex structures is used with good control, including subordinate clauses and passives, and errors are minor and rarely impede meaning.

The position is clear and sustained across both body paragraphs. The examples address relevant cross-border problems, but claims about national incapacity, a precise cooling effect and exceptionally rapid vaccine research need explanation to establish why cooperation is necessary.

Ideas progress logically through clearly organised paragraphs, with effective links between the environmental and public-health arguments. The final “This” could name the proposed research process more explicitly after the sentence listing collaboration, simulation and vaccine design.

Vocabulary is wide and precise, with natural collocations such as 'synchronized global responses', 'pooled budgets' and 'transcends political borders', showing flexibility with only rare awkwardness.

A wide range of complex structures is used with generally strong control. In the Greenland example, “continued” would align the second condition with the hypothetical “decided” and “would”; the present tense can also be read as referring to an ongoing real condition. No clear agreement error is evident.