2009至2010年欧盟国家交通燃料使用情况

The response identifies the highest and lowest transport-fuel shares and reports the key figures for both years. The main reporting weaknesses are the four-times comparison with Greece and the use of a percentage rather than percentage points for Slovakia's gap above the EU average.

Information is logically organised into an overview, a 2009 paragraph and a 2010 trend paragraph, with cohesive devices and referencing used flexibly despite occasional slight overgeneralisation.

Vocabulary is varied, including useful trend language such as 'witnessed a fall', but some expressions are awkward or unnecessarily elaborate. 'Spent fuel' is an unnatural collocation here, 'as opposed to' misframes the benchmark comparison, and 'enjoyed upswings' is less neutral than 'rose'.

A wide range of structures is used with good control, including complex sentences and passive forms, with errors that are minor and rarely impede meaning.

The response covers the main features with a clear overview and relevant comparisons, but it substantially understates Slovakia's 2009 share, incorrectly says that only Slovakia exceeded the EU average in both years, and describes Greece as both decreasing and increasing.

Ideas are logically organised with a clear overview, year-based paragraphs, and effective use of cohesive devices such as 'Overall', 'Meanwhile', and 'In contrast'.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise for describing trends and comparisons, with good use of items like 'saw opposite trends', 'remained unchanged', and 'accounted for'.

The response uses a range of complex structures with generally good control, including a while-clause in the overview and a relative clause describing Greece. Long coordinated sentences remain understandable, although the final paragraph's factual contradiction makes its message less clear.