科技如何改变人际关系的类型

The response addresses both questions with a clear, consistent position and a relevant example, but the ideas are developed only briefly and the supporting argument remains somewhat limited in depth.

Progression is generally clear with an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion, though cohesion is fairly mechanical and paragraph ideas are only loosely extended.

Vocabulary is adequate for the task with some appropriate collocations, but range is limited and there are occasional imprecise word choices such as 'internet normally pair them up'.

A mix of simple and complex structures is used with generally clear meaning, though there are noticeable grammatical errors, including tense and article problems, that recur across the response.

Both parts of the question are addressed with a clear, consistently maintained positive position, and ideas are developed with relevant examples, though the exploration of relationship types is somewhat limited in breadth.

The essay is logically organised with a clear progression across paragraphs and effective use of cohesive devices, though linking is at times slightly mechanical.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, with natural collocations and less common items such as 'myriad' and 'global village', alongside a few slightly overgeneralised phrasings.

A good range of structures, including complex and subordinate clauses, is used with flexibility and generally strong control, with only occasional minor inaccuracy.

The response addresses both questions with relevant, developed ideas and clear examples, though the position is presented as balanced rather than a clearly weighted overall judgement.

Ideas progress logically across well-organized paragraphs with effective cohesive devices, although the conclusion summarizes rather than resolves the two perspectives.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise, with natural collocations such as 'the advent of the internet' and 'revolutionized relationships', alongside only minor slips like 'fact-to-face'.

A wide range of structures is used with good control, including complex conditionals and inversion, with only occasional minor errors that do not impede meaning.

Both questions are answered with a clear position that the change is negative, developed through extended ideas and relevant examples, though support in places relies on generalisation rather than precise development.

Ideas progress logically across clear paragraphs with appropriate cohesive devices, though some linking and referencing is occasionally mechanical or slightly forced.

Vocabulary shows flexibility and some precision, including phrases like 'substantially less significant', but recurring collocational errors such as 'turned people into making' and 'keep touch' reduce accuracy.

A range of complex structures is used with generally good control, though errors in agreement, articles, and phrasing, such as 'the changes... is' and 'increase the possibility', appear across the response.

The response addresses both questions directly, presents a consistent clear position, and develops main ideas with relevant supporting examples, though examples are somewhat generalised.

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

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible to convey precise meaning on the topic, using appropriate terms like physical contact and mental illness, with only occasional less natural collocation.

A mix of simple and complex sentence forms is used with generally good control, though recurring errors such as making it is possible and only have slightly reduce overall accuracy.