UK Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Rates

The response reports the main group patterns and several accurate figures, but 11% for children in 2002 is half of the 22% for men, not half of the 25% for women. This makes the stated comparison with both adult groups inaccurate.

The overview and separate adult and child discussions provide clear organisation. Some ranking language makes the adult comparisons less direct than simply giving the year-by-year proportions, but the progression remains understandable.

Vocabulary is flexible and appropriate for describing data, using terms like 'witnessed', 'marginally', and 'slightly', with only a small slip such as 'in term of'.

A good range of structures, including complex and comparative sentences, is used with generally strong control and only occasional minor errors that do not affect clarity.

The response covers all three groups and years with accurate figures matching the chart, presents a clear overview of women being highest and children lowest, and correctly describes the rise to 2006 and fall to 2010, though comparisons could be extended slightly further.

Ideas progress logically from overview to detailed trend descriptions, with effective use of cohesive devices such as 'as a general trend', 'nonetheless', and 'respectively', although some referencing of 'this percentage' is slightly loose.

The response uses a sufficient range of trend vocabulary including 'increased uniformly', 'falling across the board', and 'comparatively lower', but repetition of 'percentage' and 'proportion' shows room for greater flexibility.

A good variety of complex structures is used accurately, including relative and comparative clauses, with only occasional slips such as 'the rate of growth for men and children were' that do not impede meaning.

All groups and years are covered, and the overview identifies women as the largest group. However, every group peaks in 2006, not 2010. The figures measure percentages of people meeting the recommended daily intake, not quantities of food consumed; repeated confusion about this metric and inaccurate adult figures weaken the report.

Ideas are arranged logically with clear paragraphing, a positioning statement, and effective use of cohesive devices such as 'Regarding' and 'In the next 4 years', giving a generally smooth progression.

There is a useful range of trend language, including 'reached the highest point' and 'rose slightly'. However, repeated references to consumption blur the distinction between amounts of food and percentages of people meeting a recommendation, and several descriptions are unnecessarily wordy.

Relative clauses and other complex structures are generally controlled, and most sentences remain intelligible. The long adult-comparison sentence is cumbersome, but 'shared the same pattern' is grammatically possible; its weakness here concerns the accuracy and precision of the comparison.

The report identifies the net increase and the highest and lowest groups, while the body describes the 2006 peak and later fall. It does not report the men’s 28% or children’s 16% peaks, and it incorrectly describes the 2002–2006 interval as eight years.

Information is organised logically into an introduction, overview, and two body stages with effective linking devices such as 'Overall', 'This was followed by', and 'By 2010, however', showing clear progression throughout.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural phrases like 'consuming the recommended daily amount', 'had a tendency to consume', and 'had decreased slightly', and only negligible imprecision such as 'nearly 22%' for an exact figure.

A wide range of structures is used with strong control, including participial phrases ('eating fruit and vegetables'), relative clauses ('in which the figure for women was highest'), and accurate past perfect ('had decreased'), with only rare minor slips.