Films Produced by Five Countries in Three Years

The response gives a clear overview, covers all five countries and makes useful comparisons. Rounded figures are generally defensible, but the detail could better distinguish C’s strong proportional growth from E’s smaller gain and show the size and partial nature of D’s recovery.

Ideas are organised logically into overview, starting data, and changes, with a range of cohesive devices used naturally and progression clear throughout.

Vocabulary is flexible and mostly precise for describing production and trends, though occasional word choices such as 'units' for films and 'distributed' for production slightly reduce accuracy.

A wide range of structures, including participle phrases and complex comparison clauses, is used with good control and only minor, non-impeding errors.

The response covers all five countries and gives a clear overview of the leading producer and net trends. The reported values are reasonable chart readings. Adding B’s middle-year output and direct comparisons between countries would reveal more of the chart’s main relationships.

The report follows a logical sequence from introduction and overview to countries grouped by net trend. Single line breaks mark these sections, but distinct paragraphs would make the structure clearer. Direct comparisons could also connect the separate country descriptions.

Vocabulary is flexible and appropriate for data description, with varied terms like 'film output', 'experienced a slight decline' and 'exhibited a positive trend', with only occasional repetition of 'films produced'.

Structures are varied and generally well controlled, including a while-clause contrasting trends and participial constructions introducing changes. Meaning remains clear throughout the report.

The response covers all five countries, gives a clear overview and groups them by overall trend. The unlabeled bars support approximate readings rather than exact-value penalties. The detail paragraphs would be stronger with selected 2008 values for B, C and E to show how their increases developed.

The overview and separate detail paragraphs provide a clear progression, with countries grouped by overall decline or growth. Linking devices are generally effective, although the opening of the final paragraph repeats the overview’s contrast rather than moving straight to the supporting figures.

Vocabulary is flexible and reasonably precise for describing trends and quantities, with some effective phrasing, though occasional redundancy and repetition of trend vocabulary are noticeable.

A good range of structures is used, including concessive and comparative forms, with consistent accuracy and only minor slips that do not impede meaning.

The response covers all countries and years with defensible approximate figures and identifies the main trend groups and rankings. References to films being released should be changed to production, and B’s standout growth is clearest when specified as the largest numerical increase.

The rising and falling countries are grouped logically, and contrastive links help the reader follow the comparisons. However, the entire report is one paragraph and the trend summary is repeated, so clearer paragraph divisions and one consolidated overview would improve progression.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise for describing trends, including 'negligible rise', 'climbed markedly', 'dip' and 'the reverse was true', with only a slightly informal expression ('a lot fewer') detracting marginally.

The response uses varied complex sentences with generally strong control of tense and clause structure. The opening participial phrase in the description of A’s fall is less clear about sequence than “After remaining stable”, although the intended progression remains understandable.