Is it appropriate?
It depends on the context and what you want to emphasize.
Here's why the passive voice might be appropriate:
* Focus on the tree: If you want to emphasize the state of the tree (damaged) rather than who or what caused the damage, the passive voice is effective.
* Unknown or unimportant agent: If you don't know who or what caused the damage, or if the agent is not important, the passive voice is a suitable choice.
* Formal writing: The passive voice is often used in formal writing, particularly scientific or technical reports, to maintain an objective tone.
Here's why the passive voice might not be appropriate:
* Lack of clarity: While the passive voice emphasizes the tree, it obscures the agent responsible for the damage. If you want to be specific or place blame, the active voice would be better.
* Less direct: The passive voice can sound less direct and less engaging than the active voice.
* Awkward phrasing: The passive voice can sometimes lead to awkward or clunky sentence structures.
Alternative using the active voice:
"Carelessness has badly damaged the old willow tree."
In conclusion:
The appropriateness of the passive voice in this case depends on your specific purpose and the desired emphasis. If you want to focus on the tree and its state, the passive voice is appropriate. If you want to identify the agent responsible for the damage or use a more direct and engaging style, the active voice would be a better choice.