University Library Users and Satisfaction Survey

The response provides an overview and covers both visuals, but several details are inaccurate or confused, such as describing part-time postgraduates as 'librarians', attributing the journal figures to books, and omitting the journals row, which limits task achievement to a partial account.

Organisation follows a visible plan with sequencing devices like 'Firstly' and 'Secondly', but progression is at times mechanical and coherence breaks down in places, such as the mislabelled '16% librarians' sentence and the awkward 'Contrastingly, I think' transition.

Vocabulary is adequate for the task but limited and sometimes imprecise, with repeated reliance on 'people' and 'satisfied', and spelling errors such as 'disatisfied', 'satisifed', and 'alse' reduce accuracy.

Sentence structures are restricted and errors are frequent, including '44 and 25 percent studies in library', '65 percent people were satisfy', and 'no people is not satisfied', though the overall meaning remains recoverable.

The response provides a relevant overview and selects key data from the pie chart and table with mostly accurate figures, but it merges books and journals into averages, omits explicit dissatisfaction data, and gives only a vague comment on wi-fi reliability.

Information is arranged in a clear chart-then-table sequence with linking devices, though the progression is somewhat mechanical and informal phrases such as 'If we talk about' and 'I mean' weaken the academic tone.

The vocabulary is generally adequate for the task with some topic-appropriate items like 'satisfaction level' and 'availability', but informal expressions, misspellings such as 'willingess' and 'infact', and vague wording like 'not that good' limit its flexibility and precision.

A mix of simple and complex structures is attempted, but errors are frequent, including 'it are visible', faulty percentage constructions such as '65% and 35% people were', and a confusing double negative, though the overall meaning usually remains clear.

The response covers all user categories and all five satisfaction rows with mostly accurate figures, but the overview contains an unsupported claim that users are satisfied with 100% of library opening hours, and small slips such as describing 20% as merely 'satisfied' weaken accuracy.

Paragraphing is logical and sequencing is easy to follow, but progression within paragraphs is largely mechanical, with data itemised row by row and repetitive comparative framing rather than grouped comparisons.

There is a good range of topic-related vocabulary and data-reporting expressions such as 'account for', 'respectively', and 'proportion', though occasional awkward choices like 'investigational study' and 'displays the percentage of users' experience' reduce precision.

A variety of complex structures and comparative forms is evident, but inconsistent tense shifting between past and present ('accounted for' versus 'are very satisfied') and some faulty comparisons recur without impeding meaning.

The overview identifies the largest user groups and broad satisfaction pattern, but 44% and 25% are wrongly expressed as shares within student groups. The opening-hours figures are present without their row label, while the correct 45% books average conceals the separate 50% and 40% responses.

Ideas are arranged logically by chart and then table category, with clear linking devices such as 'Regarding', 'As for' and 'Concerning' supporting coherent progression throughout.

Vocabulary is generally appropriate for reporting the survey, with expressions such as 'a small fraction of people', though 'almost a similar level' is awkward and some references lack precision.

A good range of structures is used with generally strong control, including relative clauses and participial phrases, with only minor slips such as '45% users said' and occasional article imprecision.

The response accurately reports all user categories and selected satisfaction figures, gives a clear overview of the main patterns, and makes relevant comparisons; most fairly-satisfied figures are not included.

Ideas progress logically from overview to chart detail to table detail, with cohesive devices such as 'followed by' and 'whilst' used naturally and paragraphs well organised.

Vocabulary is flexible and varied, with effective phrases such as 'dominate the user base', though 'closely shadowed' and 'sit comfortably in between' are less precise than direct descriptions of the satisfaction rankings.

A wide range of structures is used with strong control, including complex noun phrases, participial forms, and well-managed clauses for data reporting.

The response covers all user categories and all five services with a clear overview and accurate data, though the percentage for full-time undergraduates is omitted.

Information is logically sequenced from overview to chart details to table details, with effective use of cohesive devices such as 'Overall', 'In contrast' and 'In terms of'.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, with natural phrasing such as 'constitute the largest proportion', 'register the lowest satisfaction rates' and 'receives the least positive response'.

A wide range of complex structures, including relative and concessive clauses, is used accurately with only rare minor slips.