科技与贫富差距

Both views are addressed and a clear opinion is presented with relevant supporting examples, though the opposing viewpoint is only lightly developed and its paragraph is padded rather than substantively argued.

Paragraphing and progression are broadly clear with appropriate linking devices, but some connections are mechanical and transitions such as the closing argument are occasionally strained.

There is wide-ranging vocabulary ambition, but frequent unnatural or inaccurate collocations such as 'ubiquitous distension', 'drifting of all the sections', and 'benediction... indistinctively' reduce precision and occasionally obscure meaning.

A variety of complex structures is attempted, including inversion and relative clauses, though errors in agreement and construction, such as 'Education... are now relayed', recur without seriously impeding communication.

The essay addresses all parts of the task, discussing both views with a clear opinion and relevant examples, though some arguments, such as the luxury goods example, are developed unevenly.

Ideas progress logically across clear paragraphs with appropriate linking devices, although some transitions and referencing are slightly mechanical at times.

There is a sufficient range of vocabulary for the topic, but several awkward or inaccurate expressions, such as 'gained more beneficiaries' and 'tremendous saving', reduce precision.

A mix of structures including conditionals and comparative forms is used, but frequent article, preposition, and agreement errors limit accuracy and occasionally obscure meaning.

The response addresses the topic and signals a position, but it is 75 words below the minimum length, develops only one of the two required viewpoints, and never delivers the opinion or conclusion it promises, so the task is only partially covered.

Paragraphing is logical and cohesive devices such as 'to begin with' and 'therefore' are used naturally, but the argument stops mid-development without a second body paragraph or conclusion, leaving the overall progression incomplete.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with phrases like 'expands the gap', 'denied the opportunities', and 'better paid work' conveying ideas accurately and with some sophistication.

Sentence structures are varied and largely accurate, including complex constructions with subordinate clauses, with only occasional awkwardness or minor error that does not impede meaning.

The response addresses both views, states a clear position, and supports it with relevant explanation and an example, though ideas are developed rather than fully extended.

Ideas progress logically across clearly sequenced paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices used appropriately, with only occasional mechanical linking such as repeated 'therefore' and 'and'.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and mostly precise for the topic, using phrases like 'wealth gap' and 'equal opportunities', with only minor awkwardness in longer phrases.

A variety of complex structures, including conditionals and relative clauses, is used with generally good control, though some sentences are overlong and lose some clarity.

The response addresses both perspectives fully, states a clear personal opinion in the introduction and conclusion, and supports each side with developed explanation and relevant examples such as supercars and household appliances in Vietnam.

Ideas progress logically across well-organized paragraphs with appropriate linking devices like 'On the one hand' and 'However', though some connections within sentences feel mechanical or slightly forced.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and shows awareness of style, with items like 'state-of-the-art', 'impoverished', and 'prohibitively expensive', despite occasional unnatural collocations such as 'separate them from their society'.

A range of complex structures is used, including relative clauses and inversion ('there do exist'), but frequent errors such as 'must under rigorous safety tests', 'before delivering to customers', and inconsistent articles reduce accuracy to a mixed level.

The response addresses all parts of the task, presents a clear position throughout, and develops each viewpoint with relevant explanation and examples, though the luxury goods example only partially supports the technology argument.

Ideas are logically organised across clear paragraphs with a range of cohesive devices, and progression is generally easy to follow despite occasional slightly mechanical transitions.

There is a good range of vocabulary, including precise collocations such as 'prohibitively expensive' and 'meager income', with only occasional less natural word choices like 'bourgeois individuals'.

The response uses a variety of complex structures with frequent error-free sentences and only minor, non-impeding lapses in grammar and punctuation.