International Tourist Arrivals in Five Countries

The response covers all five countries, identifies overall growth and the leading destinations, and uses mostly defensible approximations. It does not explicitly report the USA's slight decline after 2005 or the final tie with France, and claims about fame and holiday purpose go beyond the chart.

The response moves from introduction and overview to country comparisons using time markers and links such as 'Moreover' and 'Finally'. However, all functions are compressed into one paragraph, and alternating between the leading destinations and smaller countries weakens the grouping of details.

The response uses suitable trend language such as 'sharp rise' and 'gradually increased', but constructions such as 'tourists’ number' and arrival totals that 'crossed' are awkward. 'Favourite' and 'became famous' also shift from measured arrival counts to attitudes and reputation.

A good range of structures is used, including complex and comparative forms, though recurring errors such as 'foreign tourists arrival', 'double than that of' and 'tourists arrival in Egypt slowly increased' show imperfect control of noun phrases and articles.

Key features are reported with relevant comparisons and defensible approximate figures. However, the main trends are dispersed through the details rather than consolidated in a clear overview, and Brazil and Egypt lack supporting numerical values.

The country sequence is logical and comparisons are linked clearly, but all information appears in one paragraph. Separating the overview and country groups would make the organisation easier to follow; “each.The” also needs a space.

Vocabulary is sufficiently flexible and precise for a data summary, with natural phrases like 'the next most popular destination' and 'rose steadily'.

A range of structures is used with good control, including comparative constructions and a contrast clause with “whereas”. Errors are rare and do not impede understanding, although a missing space joins two sentences visually.

The response covers all five countries and identifies France's rapid growth and its final convergence with the USA. However, France's 2005 figure is understated, Brazil and Egypt's 2010 values are inaccurately grouped at around 25 million, and the claim of fluctuations is unclear.

Ideas progress logically from an overview through the 1995 baseline to later periods, with cohesive devices such as 'Generally speaking' and time markers used naturally.

The response uses trend vocabulary such as 'sharp increase' and makes several comparisons, but 'highest ratio' does not describe the absolute arrivals shown, and numbers 'intersected' is awkward. Repeated constructions such as 'international tourists’ number' also reduce naturalness.

A variety of structures is attempted, but errors recur in verb forms and constructions, such as 'travelled the USA', 'become more popular', and 'the total tourists visited these countries increased', though meaning remains clear.