Band 5+: The chart below gives information about library borrowing in UK public libraries over a 10-year period from 1995 to 2005.

The report addresses the task and provides an overview, but it contains some inaccuracies and omissions. For instance, the figures for adult non-fiction in 1995 and 2000 are incorrectly stated (1,113 million and 161 million, respectively, but the report says 1 billion 113 million and 161 million, which is correct for 2000 but the 1995 figure is misread as 1,113 million instead of 1,113 million? Actually, the visual description says 1113, so it's correct, but the report says '1 billion 113 million' which is correct. However, the report omits the children's books data entirely, which is a key category. Additionally, the report states that adult fiction became the most borrowed in 2000, but according to the data, adult non-fiction was still higher in 2000 (161 vs 280? Actually, adult fiction is 280, adult non-fiction is 161, so adult fiction is higher, so that's correct. But the report says 'adult fiction became the most borrowed book' which is correct. However, the report incorrectly states that the total number of borrowed books decreased from 1995 to 2000, but the total in 1995 is 330+1113+107+28=1578, and in 2000 is 280+161+114+33=588, so it did decrease, but the report says 'from about 1,350 million to about 1,050 million' which is inaccurate. Also, the report says 'top audio-visual materials stayed as the least borrowed materials' but in 2005, children's books are 104 and audio-visual is 60, so audio-visual is still least, so that's correct. Overall, the report has some inaccuracies and omissions, but it does cover the main trends. The score is 6 because there is some irrelevant or inaccurate information, and key data is omitted.

The report has a clear overall structure with an introduction and paragraphs for each year. However, the progression of ideas could be smoother. For example, the first paragraph introduces the overall trend but then repeats similar information in the next paragraph. The use of linking words is limited, and some sentences feel disconnected. To improve, use a wider range of cohesive devices (e.g., 'in contrast', 'similarly', 'as a result') and ensure each paragraph has a clear central idea that builds on the previous one.

The vocabulary is adequate but repetitive and lacks sophistication. Words like 'borrowed', 'most', and 'least' are used too often. There is some attempt at variation (e.g., 'reverse was true'), but the range is narrow. To improve, use more precise and varied terms (e.g., 'lending figures', 'popularity', 'decline', 'surge') and avoid informal phrases like 'kind of book'. Also, ensure correct collocations (e.g., 'borrowed books' is acceptable, but 'borrowing figures' is more natural). Pay attention to vocabulary repetition to improve the overall score.

The report contains several grammatical errors and awkward phrasing that affect clarity. For example, 'the most borrowed book in 1995 was adult non-fiction' is correct, but later 'adult fiction became the most borrowed book' is confusing as the data shows adult non-fiction was higher in 1995. There are also issues with subject-verb agreement and sentence structure (e.g., 'the total number of borrowed books became less' could be 'the total number of books borrowed decreased'). To improve, use a wider range of sentence structures (e.g., complex sentences with relative clauses) and proofread for grammatical accuracy.