用替代能源取代化石燃料

The response clearly supports the transition while acknowledging initial costs, with relevant development of environmental and resource-security benefits. The wind-farm example and claims about solar affordability and imminent depletion need qualification, and the cost-benefit judgment could be more explicit.

Ideas progress logically across well-organised paragraphs with effective cohesive devices, though transitions remain somewhat formulaic at times.

Vocabulary is sufficiently wide for the topic, including “financial burden”, “finite resources” and “harnessing”. Some expressions lack precision or economy, notably “now already”, “emissions in the atmosphere” and “development of the planet”.

A good range of structures, including complex conditionals and relative clauses, is used accurately, with only minor, non-impeding slips.

The response sustains a clear positive position and develops relevant environmental, health and economic arguments. Some claims about weather, pollution and employment need more careful qualification to make the supporting explanation fully convincing.

Clear paragraphing and causal links support the overall progression. Within the economic paragraph, however, “Concerning national security” introduces employment rather than security, so the signposting does not consistently match the ideas.

Vocabulary is sophisticated, precise, and natural, with strong collocations such as 'greenhouse gas emissions', 'geopolitical conflicts', and 'energy independence', and only minimal inaccuracy.

A wide range of complex structures, including relative clauses, causal clauses and participial phrases, is used with consistently high accuracy. Some nominal and passive constructions could express their main point more directly.