The graph below shows the percentage of households, grouped by poverty, on the basis of access to refrigerator, electricity and water in Ghana for the year 1991/1992 to 1998/1999.

The bar chart illustrates the proportion of main elements such as refrigerator, electricity and water in different groups experienced in Ghana statistical service during 9 years.
Overall, it is clear that the wealth group accounted highest in this figure while the opposite was true for poverty and very poor groups. Also, the figure of refrigerator accessed was the lowest in all factors.
As can be seen form the chart, the proportion of very poor groups access was just 3% in refrigerator in during the period, compared with around 48% of electricity in drop year 1991-1992, after 7 years was slightly reduced by 5%. In water, there were 55% in 1991-1992 whereas well over 2% in 1998-1999.
Poverty group in Ghana access better in refrigerator compared with very poor with 11% in 1991-1992, before decline just 7% in 1998-1999. There was approximately 57% in poverty group priority in electricity and witnessed a fall by 9% in 1998-1999. The figure of water was remain unchanged with 69% in during 9 years.
Finally, there was significantly growth roughly 13% in the figure of refrigerator and electricity of wealth group during the period while the figure in water of this group slightly rise about 4%, noteably, 76% in 1991-1992 and 80% in 1998-1999.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

"experienced in Ghana statistical service" -> "recorded by the Ghana Statistical Service"
Explanation: "Experienced in Ghana statistical service" is awkward and doesn’t clearly convey the idea of data collection. "Recorded by the Ghana Statistical Service" is a more precise and formal phrase that accurately describes the source of the data.
"wealth group accounted highest" -> "the wealthiest group accounted for the highest"
Explanation: "Wealth group accounted highest" lacks clarity and proper syntax. By restructuring the phrase to "the wealthiest group accounted for the highest," the sentence becomes grammatically correct and clearer.
"figure of refrigerator accessed" -> "access to refrigerators"
Explanation: "Figure of refrigerator accessed" is awkward and doesn’t convey the intended meaning clearly. "Access to refrigerators" is a more concise and appropriate phrase that accurately describes the data being presented.
"proportion of very poor groups access" -> "accessibility for the very poor"
Explanation: "Proportion of very poor groups access" lacks clarity and proper grammar. "Accessibility for the very poor" is a clearer and more grammatically correct phrase that accurately describes the concept being discussed.
"compared with around 48% of electricity in drop year" -> "compared with approximately 48% access to electricity in the year of decline"
Explanation: "48% of electricity in drop year" is unclear and lacks proper syntax. By rephrasing to "approximately 48% access to electricity in the year of decline," the sentence becomes clearer and grammatically correct.
"after 7 years was slightly reduced by 5%" -> "after 7 years, it experienced a slight reduction of 5%"
Explanation: "After 7 years was slightly reduced by 5%" lacks clarity and proper structure. By rephrasing to "after 7 years, it experienced a slight reduction of 5%," the sentence becomes clearer and more grammatically correct.
"whereas well over 2% in 1998-1999" -> "while it reached well over 2% in 1998-1999"
Explanation: "Whereas well over 2% in 1998-1999" is awkward and lacks clarity. By rephrasing to "while it reached well over 2% in 1998-1999," the sentence becomes clearer and grammatically correct.
"access better in refrigerator" -> "access to refrigerators was better"
Explanation: "Access better in refrigerator" lacks proper grammar and clarity. By rephrasing to "access to refrigerators was better," the sentence becomes clearer and grammatically correct.
"There was approximately 57% in poverty group priority" -> "Approximately 57% of the poverty group had access"
Explanation: "There was approximately 57% in poverty group priority" is unclear and lacks proper syntax. By rephrasing to "Approximately 57% of the poverty group had access," the sentence becomes clearer and grammatically correct.
"witnessed a fall by 9%" -> "experienced a decline of 9%"
Explanation: "Witnessed a fall by 9%" could be more succinctly expressed as "experienced a decline of 9%" while maintaining clarity and formality.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

[
Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay adequately addresses the requirements of the task by presenting an overview of the main trends observed in the graph. It covers key elements such as refrigerator, electricity, and water access in different wealth groups over a nine-year period. The main trends are identified, such as the higher access rates in wealthier groups compared to poorer ones, and the declining trend in refrigerator access. However, there are some inaccuracies and unclear expressions throughout the essay, such as the statement "the wealth group accounted highest in this figure" and the use of "drop year" instead of a specific year.
How to improve: Focus on improving clarity and accuracy in expression. Ensure that statements are clear and directly relate to the data presented. Avoid ambiguous phrases and use precise language. Additionally, pay attention to grammar and sentence structure to enhance readability.]

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0
Explanation: The essay presents some organization by introducing the main elements and summarizing overall trends. However, there are issues with coherence and cohesion. There is a lack of clear progression in presenting information, as the essay jumps between different groups without a smooth transition. Additionally, the use of cohesive devices is inadequate, with some sentences lacking clear connections. Paragraphing is attempted, but it’s not consistently logical.
How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, focus on structuring the essay more logically. Each paragraph should have a clear topic sentence and flow smoothly into the next. Use cohesive devices such as transition words and phrases to connect ideas more effectively. Also, ensure consistent and appropriate paragraphing throughout the essay. Additionally, pay attention to grammar and sentence structure to convey ideas more clearly.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 4

Band Score: 4.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates a basic understanding of the task and utilizes a limited range of vocabulary. While some attempt is made to describe the data presented in the graph, the language lacks sophistication and precision. There are repetitive use of basic vocabulary, and the essay often lacks clarity due to errors in word choice and word formation. Additionally, there are noticeable errors in spelling and grammar throughout the essay, which may cause strain for the reader.

How to improve:

Enhance vocabulary usage by incorporating a wider range of words and phrases relevant to the topic, such as synonyms for "illustrates" and "proportion."
Focus on clarity and coherence by structuring sentences more effectively and ensuring the logical flow of ideas.
Pay attention to word choice and accuracy to convey precise meanings.
Review and revise for spelling and grammatical errors to improve overall readability and comprehension.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6

Explanation: The essay demonstrates an ability to use a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, fitting with the Band 6 descriptor. There is a clear attempt to convey detailed information related to the graph, with varied sentence structures employed to present comparisons, changes over time, and overall trends. However, there are several grammatical errors and awkward phrasings throughout the essay, such as "the proportion of very poor groups access was just 3% in refrigerator in during the period" and "There was approximately 57% in poverty group priority in electricity and witnessed a fall by 9% in 1998-1999." These issues occasionally hinder clear communication but do not entirely obscure the meaning. The essay does not consistently demonstrate "good control of grammar and punctuation" as expected at Band 7, nor does it match the higher accuracy and flexibility of Bands 8 and 9.

How to Improve:

Focus on Accuracy: Prioritize accuracy in your sentences. This means paying close attention to subject-verb agreement, tense consistency, and the correct use of articles ("a," "an," and "the"). For example, instead of "the figure of refrigerator accessed was the lowest in all factors," consider "the access to refrigerators had the lowest percentage among all factors."
Practice Complex Structures: To aim for a higher band, increase the range and accuracy of complex sentence structures. This involves using a variety of subordinate clauses, conditionals, and passive constructions where appropriate. Practicing specific structures can help embed them in your writing more naturally.
Review and Edit: After writing, take the time to review your work specifically for grammatical errors and awkward phrasings. Reading sentences out loud or having another person review your essay can help identify areas that need clarification or correction.
Expand Your Range: Experiment with different ways to express similar ideas to broaden your grammatical range. For instance, instead of always using percentages directly, consider phrases like "a slight majority," "a significant portion," or "a minority of."
Utilize Resources: Make use of grammar books, online resources, or language apps to practice specific grammatical structures. Many resources offer exercises on complex sentence construction and other areas where you may need improvement.

Bài sửa mẫu

The provided bar chart delineates the distribution of households across various socio-economic strata based on their access to essential amenities such as refrigeration, electricity, and water in Ghana over a nine-year period from 1991 to 1999.

In overview, it is evident that households classified as wealthier demonstrated the highest levels of access to these amenities, whereas those categorized as impoverished or very poor had notably lower access rates. Additionally, refrigerator access stood out as the least prevalent among the three factors analyzed.

Examining the specifics of the chart, it is apparent that access to refrigeration among the very poor group remained consistently low throughout the period, starting at a mere 3% in 1991-1992 and experiencing a marginal decrease to 2% by 1998-1999. Conversely, access to electricity for this group began at around 48% in 1991-1992, dropping slightly to approximately 43% by the end of the period. Water access for the very poor started at 55% and saw a significant decline to just over 2% by 1998-1999.

In contrast, households classified as poverty-stricken in Ghana exhibited better access to refrigeration, starting at 11% in 1991-1992 before decreasing to 7% by 1998-1999. Electricity access for this group began notably higher at approximately 57%, declining to around 48% by the end of the period, while water access remained relatively unchanged at 69% over the nine years.

Notably, the wealthier segment experienced a substantial increase in both refrigerator and electricity access, rising by approximately 13% and maintaining consistent levels of water access at around 76% in 1991-1992, which marginally increased to 80% by 1998-1999.