Band 7+: Number of visits abroad (000s): by UK airport used and main country visited 2013

The response effectively addresses the main requirements of the task by providing an overview and highlighting key features of the data. The overall trend is correctly identified, and several notable comparisons are made, such as the high number of visits to Spain and the low numbers for Lithuania. However, there are some inaccuracies and omissions. For instance, the report states that Gatwick's total is the highest and Heathrow's is the lowest, but Heathrow's total is not the lowest in reality (Stansted is), and the statement about 'select countries' is unclear. Additionally, the figure for Manchester visits to Spain is written as '1,715,00' instead of '1,715,000' and the report incorrectly says Manchester visits to Lithuania were 'vacant' when the data shows 0, which is correct, but the phrase 'at 50,000' is not clear. Furthermore, the report omits mentions of several country-airport combinations, but this is a minor issue. To improve, ensure accurate data citation and clarity in expressions, and consider elaborating on a wider range of data points for a more complete coverage.

The report has a clear overall structure with an introduction, an overview, and paragraphs focusing on different airports. However, the organisation of information within paragraphs could be improved. The flow between sentences sometimes feels abrupt, and there is some unnecessary repetition of 'visits to...' which slightly affects readability. To achieve a higher score, consider grouping related data more logically (e.g., grouping by destination or by trends) and using a wider range of cohesive devices to link ideas smoothly.

The vocabulary used is generally appropriate for the task, and there is some good range (e.g., 'topped the list', 'ranked bottom', 'vacant'). However, there are some inaccuracies and awkward collocations, such as 'vacant' instead of 'no reported visits' or 'zero', and 'was ranked bottom' which is slightly awkward. The phrase 'at 50,000' seems to misrepresent the data (likely a typo for 1,715,000 but the numbers are not accurate as per the data). The language is not consistently precise or natural. To improve, work on using more accurate and varied vocabulary, and avoid vague terms like 'various countries' when specific countries are listed. Pay attention to vocabulary repetition to improve the overall score.

The report demonstrates a reasonable range of grammatical structures, with some complex sentences and appropriate use of passive/infinitive structures (e.g., 'The number of visits...', 'compared to'). However, there are some grammatical errors and awkward phrasing, such as 'lowest,which' (missing space after comma), 'was the lowest,which was vacant' (double subject), and '1,715,00' (missing a zero). The sentence 'In contrast the number of visits from Heathrow to various countries was ranked bottom for visits at about 884,000' is somewhat awkward and uses 'bottom' colloquially. Punctuation and accuracy are inconsistent. To improve, focus on refining sentence construction, ensuring commas are used correctly, and avoiding redundant phrases.