The candidate has good fluency (flow of speech) and continues speaking with ease and his speech is coherent without any long pauses. He makes good use of various markers and linking words, for example, "I would say" "that’s a good question" "as I said" "as long as", but his use of the word "yeah" is too frequent for natural speech and he is sometimes inaccurate when he is referencing, for example, the use of the phrase "for the one or the other reasons", which is incorrect – the correct phrase is for one reason or another.
He shows that he has a wide range of vocabulary by using some less common and idiomatic words and phrases and he also uses collocations well "financial crisis", "global warming", "easy to blame", "can’t stand the pressure", "he stands for something", but sometimes uses vocabulary which is not so accurate, for example, "a big branch", "environmentally people/things", "on the other side of the lake", and "Greek" instead of Greece.
He uses a good range of grammar structures including simple and complex forms. He does not make many errors in his sentences, but there are some errors relating to:
"people who wants" – should be people who want
"the people who admires him" – should be the people who admire him
"the normal person" – should be a normal person
"everything what happens" – should be everything that happens
Generally speaking, he has clear pronunciation which is easy to understand. He controls stress and intonation well in sentences in order to convey meaning, for example, "you can’t blame a soccer player but it’s easy to blame the politicians." His accent is noticeable and the way he pronounces certain words makes his speech more difficult to understand clearly, for example, "wole model" instead of role model; "wong" instead of wrong, and "serf the planet" instead of serve the planet.