美国典型餐食中的营养素饼图

The response covers all three charts with broadly accurate figures and identifies meals associated with high shares. However, the overview does not isolate the largest contributors clearly, and describing lunch as comprising nutrient percentages confuses intake shares with food composition.

The report moves logically from an overview to meal-by-meal detail, but all nine sentences are presented in one paragraph. Separating the overview from the supporting figures would make the organisation clearer.

Vocabulary is generally adequate and topic-appropriate, but occasional awkward or imprecise expressions such as 'in details' and 'comprises of' limit flexibility.

A variety of sentence structures is used with generally good control, though errors such as subject-verb agreement and awkward relative constructions are noticeable at times.

The response covers all three charts and identifies the leading meal for each nutrient. Its figures and approximate fractions are consistent with the chart, but wording sometimes obscures the comparisons, especially the relationship between snacks and dinner for added sugar.

Progression is logical, moving from overview to nutrient-by-nutrient detail, but linking is somewhat mechanical and repetitive, as seen in the repeated 'glance' framing phrases.

The response uses relevant nutrient and meal vocabulary, but repeated framing phrases and awkward expressions such as “At a fleeting glance”, “taken mone” and “the rest amount” reduce precision and naturalness.

The response attempts comparisons and linked clauses, but fragments, unclear clause relationships, inconsistent tense and unusual capitalisation recur. These problems sometimes make the reporting difficult to follow.

All twelve numerical values are reported correctly, and breakfast is identified as a low contributor. However, the overview could distinguish the dinner peaks from the snack sugar peak more clearly, and some sentences blur intake shares with meal composition.

Information is logically sequenced with effective referencing and cohesive devices, but the chart-by-chart progression is somewhat mechanical and the closing observation repeats the overview rather than extending it.

The response demonstrates sufficient lexical range for the task, using varied terms such as 'proportion', 'contributes to' and 'respectively', with only occasional imprecision such as 'in plenty'.

A range of structures, including relative clauses and passive forms, is used with generally good control. The comma after “that” in the final sentence is misplaced, and some phrasing is awkward.

The response reports all percentages accurately and identifies the main leaders in its overview. However, saying that breakfast and snacks are 'made up of 14% sodium' confuses each meal's composition with its share of total sodium consumption.

Progression is logical, with a clear overview and body paragraphs grouping dinner with lunch and snacks with breakfast. The repeated nutrient-by-nutrient transitions are somewhat formulaic, but the paired-meal organisation supports direct comparisons.

Vocabulary is flexible and precise, including 'pernicious effects' and 'a considerable disparity', with minor awkwardness in the repeated bare singular 'snack' and the wording used to describe nutrient shares.

A wide range of structures is used accurately, including the relative clause 'the overconsumption of which can have pernicious effects on health' and comparative constructions, with only rare, non-impeding slips.