Energy Production by Source from 1985 to 2003

The response covers all six sources and identifies oil as the largest contributor in both years. However, it gives the 1985 oil share as 59% rather than 52% and describes the 2003 coal share as two fifths rather than 22%. The overview would be stronger if it also summarised the main increases and decreases.

The introduction, overview and two detail paragraphs provide a logical sequence. However, openings such as “Having a deep look” and “Moving forward to the rest description” are mechanical, and “which reduced” leaves the reference to the nuclear share unclear.

There is adequate lexical range for describing proportions and trends, but imprecise collocations such as 'participating in less ratio' and 'noticed for' reduce flexibility and accuracy.

Simple and complex structures are attempted, but errors such as “which were occurred”, “was decreased” and “13% and 23% noticed” show problems with verb forms and complete clauses, despite generally recoverable meaning.

The response covers all six sources with accurate individual figures and relevant comparisons. However, the overview incorrectly says fossil fuels declined: their combined share rose from 73% to 84%. The broader claim about cleaner sources is not established by the charts.

Ideas progress logically from a clear overview through 1985 and then 2003, with cohesive devices used naturally and no noticeable strain on the reader.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise for describing change and ranking, with terms like 'markedly', 'overtaking', and 'quadrupled' used accurately and with only rare slips.

Complex sentences, participial clauses and contrastive linking are handled confidently. Structures such as “Despite experiencing” and “whereas” show range and control, with no clear grammatical errors in the response.