иԇô
и֞ɲCόͪ(d)ɲĵu(png)ֶ 1-5 ֮g5 ߷]Ќģδᘌ(du)}ĿM(jn)ЌδӢM(jn)Ќô@ 0 ֡ھCόȫxijģ 0 ;ֻP(gun)xµ^c(din) 1 ֡
иCό
иCόҪ 3 犃(ni)xһƪW(xu)g(sh) һcԓԒ}P(gun)vSvҪc(din)һƪڸУҪUvҪՓc(din)cxе^c(din)(lin)ϵ
иu(png)?
иٷָ(du)CόֵгҪ
1. vеһЩ_^c(din)fhՓ@Щ(ni)ǡÌ(du)xе^c(din)|(zh)ɻc෴
2. ^c(din)r(sh)ҪB؞(zhn)_ZҪǡ(dng)܉(zhn)_ر_(d)vcxµ^c(din)
3. lY(ji)(gu)B؞@ӵ܉ʹxvе.^c(din)cxе^c(din)(lin)ϵ
һԴиٷָУ(du)һƪõM 5 ֵľCĵu(png)
There are several erros of spelling, word information, and subject-verb agreement in this response; however, most of these errors seem to be the result of typing errors common to first drafts. This writer does an excellent job of presenting the lecturer's points that contradict the arguments made in the reading passage. The writer is very specific and has organized his points so that they are parallel with one another: in each of the supporting paragraphs, the lecturer's observation of what really happened is given first, then explicitly connected to a theoretical point from the reading. The final paragraph contains one noticeable error ("influent"), which is then used correctly two sentences later ("influential"). Overall, this is a successful response and earns a score of 5.
@҂ԿҪ댑һƪCόc(din)Ҫ܉^õرvP(gun)Ic(din)f@ЩP(gun)Ic(din)cx֮gP(gun)ϵ
@(du)߷(5 )ĵu(png)ՓУ҂Է߷ҪMc(din)Ҫ܉رvеҪϢ;Ҫ܉_،vP(gun)IϢxеϢM(jn)(lin)ϵ;ٴƪҪǰһ£l;ZҲҪƪҪZ_~ǡ(dng)ֻSż̎Ze(cu)`
и(d)
(d)Ҫᘌ(du)ij(g)}Լ^c(din) 30 犃(ni)һƪҪеij(g)}UԼĿ
u(png)?
(du)һƪи(d)u(png)˕(hu)c(din)ĵ|(zh)u(png)չ_Փc(din)M½Y(ji)(gu)\(yn)ZԱ_(d)Լ^c(din)
һԴиٷָУ(du)һƪõM 5 ֵľCĵu(png)
In this response the writer first approaches the topic by underscoring that a number of character traits are important to a relationship. The writer then effectively develops an argument that, unlike other negative behaviors, dishonesty or unwillingness to fully disclose some bad action cannot be forgivien and can be the most important factor in destroying a relationship. The writer's language is fluent, accurate, and varied enough to effectively support the progression and connection of ideas. There is a variety of sentence structures, including rhetorical questions. The essay is not mechanically perfect, but as long as such errors are occasional, are minor, and do not interfere with the reader's understanding, an essay like this one can still earn a top score.
@҂Էóһƪ(d)Ҫ܉չ_Փc(din)øN֧փ(ni)((x)(ji)ɵ)֧^c(din)Ҫø߷tҪ܉ܺõչ_Փc(din)\(yn)ǡ(dng)ĽCͼ(x)(ji)
QԒf߷IJHҪ}Ҫеļ(x)(ji)܉ܺõ֧Փc(din)֮߀Ҫ^õؽM½Y(ji)(gu)棬Ƭ¾Сy(tng)һԡuM(jn)ԡ͡B؞ԡ
Ҫø߷Ҫ٘(ijЩ^c(din)؏(f))x}(һЩcҪՓc(din)]P(gun)(lin)^c(din)(hu)ʹՓʧy(tng)һԡ)Լl㕽(xyµăɂ(g)^c(din)ǃɂ(g)Bһ)
߀Ҫչʾ(du)ZԵ\(yn)ˮƽҪø߷ıwF(xin)Z\(yn)õĺCĵľӑ(yng)Y(ji)(gu)ӣo(yng)NеwгF(xin)һЩС~RZe(cu)`Ȼܵø߷֣F(xin)Ze(cu)`ʹ˼M(fi)÷֕(hu)һЩ
иԇôP(gun)£
ô06-19
ô11-21
ô06-19
(ji)ӢZô06-18
P(gun)ĸ۵ô06-18
µĴ(ji)ô06-18
ѵô10-23
^ô09-03
Ҋô07-09