素食对个人健康和全球的益处

The response addresses the task with a clear opinion favouring moderate meat and fish consumption, but several main ideas, such as the species-regulation argument, are developed unevenly and lack clarity or full support.

Paragraphing and overall progression are broadly logical with some linking devices, yet cohesion within paragraphs is sometimes weak and a few statements connect poorly to the surrounding ideas.

Vocabulary is adequate for the topic but limited in range, with noticeable errors of collocation and word choice such as 'harmful acquaintances' and 'smaller request' that obscure meaning at times.

A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, but frequent errors in agreement, article use, and verb forms occur while the central meaning usually remains recoverable.

The response discusses health, environmental and ethical motivations, and the conclusion gives a positive judgement. However, much of the essay reports people’s reasons rather than fully explaining the claimed benefits, and several connections between the examples and those benefits remain unclear.

Paragraphing is logical and progression is broadly clear, though cohesive devices such as repeated 'moreover' and 'however' are used somewhat mechanically.

There is an adequate range of vocabulary for the topic, but imprecise word choices like 'blood tension' and 'on the purpose of' reduce accuracy and precision.

A mix of simple and complex sentence forms is used with generally clear meaning, but errors in article use, agreement, and structure occur with some frequency.

The response discusses health and environmental benefits as well as possible drawbacks, and consistently recommends reducing rather than eliminating meat and fish. Relevant personal examples are included, but some general claims about nutritional effects need clearer explanation and qualification.

Paragraphing is logical and progression is broadly clear, but cohesive devices are at times mechanical or misused, and an informal ellipsis interrupts the flow.

The response shows an adequate range of vocabulary for the topic, with some attempts at less common expressions, though occasional inaccurate collocations and word choices reduce precision.

A mix of simple and complex sentence forms is used with some flexibility, but errors in subject-verb agreement, verb forms, and prepositions recur across the response.

The response addresses all parts of the task with a clear, consistent position that vegetarianism has benefits but balanced consumption is preferable, supported by relevant ideas, though some points such as the environmental argument remain underdeveloped.

Ideas are organised into logical paragraphs with clear progression and appropriate sequencing devices, but linking is at times mechanical, including repeated use of 'and then' and abrupt sentence starts.

The response shows adequate range of topic-related vocabulary such as 'cardiovascular diseases', 'over-exploitation', and 'ecosystem', though it includes some inaccuracy and imprecision in word choice and formation.

A mix of simple and complex structures is used with generally clear meaning, but errors in agreement, articles, and word form such as 'being vegetarian bring' and 'become imbalance' occur frequently enough to be noticeable.

The response discusses health and environmental benefits and gives a clear qualified position that vegetarianism is not suitable for everyone. Relevant examples support the discussion, but some claims about cultural or physical requirements are categorical and need fuller justification.

The argument has an understandable sequence, but the entire essay is one continuous paragraph. The benefits, qualifications and final recommendation need separate grouping to make the progression easier to follow. Some links also rely on repeated sequencing phrases.

Vocabulary is generally adequate and flexible for the topic, with some precise phrases, but occasional wrong word choices like 'Framing livestock' and 'For this season' reduce precision.

A range of complex and conditional structures is used with generally good control and clear meaning. The phrase "sushi will not be complete" is grammatically well formed; concerns about that example relate to the support for the claim, rather than its verb construction.

The viewpoint is fully discussed with developed health and global-warming arguments, and a clear, qualified personal opinion is sustained throughout.

Progression is logical with effective paragraphing and cohesive devices, though the passage on teenage rebellion is a somewhat tangential detour from the central argument.

Vocabulary is precise and natural, with good collocations such as food resources and valid choice, but it is not consistently ambitious or rare in range.

A wide range of complex structures is used flexibly and accurately, including conditionals and concessive clauses, with only rare minor slips.