The graph below shows the average time spent by four cars manufacturers to produce vehicles at their US factories

The line graph demonstrates changes in the average number of hours spent on producing cars by four car manufacturers at their US factories over a 7 year period between 1998 and 2005
Overall, it is clear that the average time spent by all the four manufacturers decreased over the period. Also noticeable is that General Moto was reported to have the highest saving car production time as opposed to Honda.
Initially, the saving car production time was used by the General Moto sector stood the highest, at 32 hours. This figure was 4 – hour higher than the corresponding figure for Ford, which allocated 28 hours to car production time. During the following three years, Ford witnessed a steady increased in the time taken to produce vehicles to a peak 31 hours before the figure experienced a dramatic drop to under 22 hours in 2005. Meanwhile, there was a significant declined in the production time taken by General Motor at roughly 27 hours in 2001 and fell more slightly, ending the period around 22 hours.
The remaining manufacturers were reported to have lower average hours to produce cars. The only remarkable feature is that both Toyota and Honda shared the same number of hours in 1998. By 2001, the figure for Toyota experienced a slightly decreased while that of Honda increased gradually until the figures both met at 22 hours. The same trend can be seen over the last three years, both the figures decreased to 20 hours at 2005, a fall of 2 hours over the 7 years.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"The line graph demonstrates" -> "The line graph illustrates"
Explanation: "Illustrates" is a more precise term in academic writing, as it specifically refers to presenting information visually, which is more appropriate for describing a graph.
"average number of hours spent on producing cars" -> "average time spent on manufacturing vehicles"
Explanation: "Manufacturing" is a more precise term than "producing" in this context, and "vehicles" is a broader term that encompasses cars, which is more appropriate in formal academic writing.
"saving car production time" -> "reduced car production time"
Explanation: "Reduced" is a more accurate term than "saving" in this context, as it correctly describes the decrease in time spent on production.
"was used by the General Moto sector" -> "was allocated by General Motors"
Explanation: "Allocated" is the correct term for assigning resources, such as time, whereas "used" is vague and imprecise. Also, "General Moto" should be corrected to "General Motors" for accuracy and professionalism.
"a steady increased" -> "a steady increase"
Explanation: "Increase" is a noun and should not be modified by "increased" in this context; instead, "a steady increase" is the correct phrase.
"dramatic drop" -> "significant decrease"
Explanation: "Dramatic" is an emotional term that is less suitable for academic writing; "significant" is more neutral and appropriate for formal analysis.
"declined" -> "decreased"
Explanation: "Decreased" is more specific and appropriate for describing a reduction in quantity or time, aligning better with the context of production hours.
"fell more slightly" -> "decreased slightly"
Explanation: "Fell" is vague and can be misinterpreted; "decreased" is clearer and more precise in this context, indicating a reduction in quantity or amount.
"The remaining manufacturers" -> "The other manufacturers"
Explanation: "The remaining" implies a sense of leftovers, which is not accurate in this context. "The other" is more neutral and appropriate for describing the remaining data points.
"shared the same number of hours" -> "had the same production time"
Explanation: "Had the same production time" is more specific and directly relates to the context of manufacturing hours, enhancing clarity and precision.
"a slightly decreased" -> "a slight decrease"
Explanation: "A slight decrease" is grammatically correct and maintains the formal tone of academic writing.
"both the figures decreased" -> "both figures decreased"
Explanation: "Both the figures" is redundant; "both figures" is sufficient and more concise, improving the flow of the sentence.

These changes enhance the precision, clarity, and formality of the text, aligning it more closely with academic writing standards.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay provides an overview of the main trends in the graph, but it does not fully extend the key features. For example, the essay states that "Ford witnessed a steady increased in the time taken to produce vehicles to a peak 31 hours before the figure experienced a dramatic drop to under 22 hours in 2005." However, it does not provide any specific data points to support this claim. The essay also does not fully explain the relationship between the different manufacturers. For example, it states that "both Toyota and Honda shared the same number of hours in 1998." However, it does not explain why this is significant or how it relates to the overall trend.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more specific data points to support the claims made. It could also be improved by providing a more detailed analysis of the relationship between the different manufacturers. For example, the essay could discuss the reasons why General Motors had the highest saving car production time or why Ford experienced a dramatic drop in production time in 2005.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng:

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates a basic range of vocabulary appropriate for the task. There is an attempt to describe the data using varied vocabulary such as "dramatic drop," "significant declined," and "remarkable feature," though some phrases like "saving car production time" are inaccurate or awkwardly used. However, there are noticeable errors in word choice and word formation throughout the essay ("declined," "increased," "experienced a slightly decreased," "fell more slightly"). These errors occasionally hinder clarity and may cause difficulty for the reader.

How to improve:
To improve the Lexical Resource score, focus on using a wider range of vocabulary relevant to describing trends and data changes. Pay attention to accuracy in word choice, especially verb tenses and phrasal verbs. Practice using more precise and varied expressions to convey information effectively. Additionally, work on spelling and word formation to reduce errors and enhance clarity in communication.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 3

Band Score: 3.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates an attempt to use sentence forms, but numerous errors in grammar and punctuation significantly distort the meaning and clarity of the text. The essay lacks coherence and cohesion due to frequent grammatical errors, incorrect word choices, and awkward sentence structures. There are issues with verb tense consistency, subject-verb agreement, and sentence fragmentation throughout the essay. These errors make it challenging for the reader to follow the intended message effectively.

How to improve:

Grammar and Punctuation: Focus on improving basic grammar rules such as subject-verb agreement, verb tense consistency, and proper use of punctuation marks.
Sentence Structure: Aim to use clearer and more coherent sentence structures. Avoid sentence fragments and run-on sentences to enhance readability.
Vocabulary and Word Choice: Choose words carefully to accurately convey the intended meaning. Avoid awkward phrasing and incorrect word usage.

By addressing these areas, the essay can achieve better clarity and coherence, leading to improved communication of ideas and a higher band score in Grammatical Range and Accuracy.

Bài sửa mẫu

The line graph illustrates changes in the average time spent producing vehicles by four car manufacturers at their US factories over a seven-year period from 1998 to 2005.

Overall, it is evident that all four manufacturers saw a decrease in the average production time during this period. General Motors achieved the highest reduction in production time compared to Honda.

Initially, General Motors required the most time to produce cars, at 32 hours, which was 4 hours more than Ford, which recorded 28 hours. Over the next three years, Ford’s production time steadily increased to a peak of 31 hours before sharply declining to just under 22 hours by 2005. In contrast, General Motors initially had a production time of around 27 hours in 2001, which decreased slightly to approximately 22 hours by the end of the period.

Toyota and Honda both started with the same production time of 27 hours in 1998. By 2001, Toyota’s production time slightly decreased while Honda’s increased gradually, resulting in both manufacturers meeting at 22 hours. This trend continued over the last three years, with both Toyota and Honda reducing their production time to 20 hours by 2005, marking a decrease of 2 hours over the seven-year period.