Train Passenger Numbers and Punctuality 2000–2009

The response covers both graphs and compares their trends and target performance. However, it reports the 2002 passenger peak as about 37 million despite a point above 40 million, includes below-target 2005 in a target-meeting interval, and describes the final passenger dip and recovery as stability.

Ideas are organised logically by time period with effective linking and referencing, and progression is easy to follow despite a minor internal contradiction in the passenger figures.

Vocabulary is varied and generally supports trend descriptions, with expressions such as “erratic” and “plateaued”. However, “running time efficiency” does not name punctuality accurately, and “inadequate” and “sufficient” add service-quality judgments that would be clearer as comparisons with the target.

Complex sentences, participial phrases and time clauses are generally controlled. The before-clause is grammatically well formed; the problem there is the reported passenger figure and relationship, rather than clause construction. Most needed revisions concern factual precision and lexical choice.

The response covers both graphs and gives a relevant overview of fluctuating passenger numbers and improving punctuality. Its broad estimates are defensible, though the overview understates the passenger variation and the body could explain intermediate turning points and compare punctuality with the target more fully.

Ideas are organised logically with clear paragraphing and effective sequencing devices such as 'then' and 'before', giving a progression that is easy to follow throughout.

Vocabulary supports clear trend descriptions, including “fluctuated”, “reached a peak” and “maintained this level”. However, “steadily inclined” is awkward for an increasing percentage, and naming the percentage directly would make the measure clearer than “the frequency at which”.

A good range of structures is used, including relative clauses and participle constructions, with only minor errors such as spacing before a full stop that do not impede meaning.

The response covers both graphs, provides a relevant overview and reports most key trends and figures accurately. However, the passenger peak is incorrectly placed in 2007 rather than 2005. Describing the 2003 passenger figure as a return to its starting level is a reasonable reading of the graph.

Ideas progress logically across well-managed paragraphs with effective cohesive devices such as 'prior to', 'with respect to', and 'however', though a few linkages like 'acknowledging the presence of a baseline' feel slightly forced.

Vocabulary is varied, with useful trend expressions such as “erratic trend”, “pullback”, “trough” and “fell short of target”. Precision is less consistent in “commuted”, which assumes a travel purpose not supplied, and “figure for actual on-time trains”, which could name the percentage more directly.

A wide range of structures is used with generally good control, including participial and relative clauses, but minor errors such as 'was then fluctuating' and 'in 2002 onwards' show imperfect tense and preposition use.