Band 7+: The diagrams below give information on transport and car use in Edmonton

The report appropriately addresses the task by describing both charts and highlighting key trends. It correctly identifies the most common transport mode and the main reason for car use. However, there are some inaccuracies and omissions: the right chart is referred to as a 'table' instead of a pie chart, and the figures for leisure activities and shopping are incorrectly stated (the description indicates both are 15%, but the report says leisure is similar to shopping, which is correct, but it also says shopping is 15% and leisure is similar, which is fine; however, the report omits the exact figure for leisure activities). Additionally, the report could be more precise in comparing data across charts. Overall, the response covers the main requirements but has minor lapses in accuracy and terminology. The report falls short of the required 150 words.

The report is well-organized and easy to follow, with a clear overall structure. The introduction paraphrases the task, and the overview effectively highlights key trends. The body paragraphs are logically separated, and cohesive devices are used appropriately. However, there is a minor inconsistency: the second chart is referred to as a 'table' instead of a 'pie chart,' which could cause slight confusion. Additionally, the final sentence could be more clearly linked to the previous one to enhance flow. Overall, cohesion is strong, with only minor lapses.

The report demonstrates a good range of vocabulary with appropriate use of synonyms and paraphrasing (e.g., 'prevalent form of transport,' 'commuters,' 'inhabitants' reasons'). The language is generally natural and precise. However, there is some repetition of 'standing at' and 'being at,' and the phrase 'the least significant portions' could be more naturally expressed as 'the smallest proportions.' Additionally, the use of 'automobiles' is slightly formal but acceptable. Overall, the lexical resource is strong, with only minor areas for improvement in variety and naturalness.

The report uses a variety of sentence structures, including complex sentences and comparative forms, with a high level of accuracy. Punctuation is correct, and there are no significant grammar errors. The main issue is the incorrect reference to the second chart as a 'table,' which is a content error rather than a grammar issue. Additionally, the phrase 'the data on taking children to school' could be more concise, but it is grammatically correct. Overall, the grammatical range and accuracy are very good, with only minor lapses.