The charts below show the performance of spending on roads and transport in four countries from 1990 to 2005. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisions where relevant.

The charts below show the performance of spending on roads and transport in four countries from 1990 to 2005.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisions where relevant.

The bar chart delineates the proportion of authority expending on roads and transport in four distinct nations over a period of 15 years commencing in 1990.
Looking from an overall perspective, it is readily apparent that the expense of roads and transport in Italia ,Portugal and UK witnessed general downward trends, while the opposite was true for USA. Moreover, the Portugal's government expended the most striking volume of money on transportation .
In 1990, the Portuguese administration allocated over 25% of their national budget on roads and transport, which was higher than those for the Italia at nearly 23%. However, the former saw a considerable decline of about 8% to 20% in 2005. Meanwhile, there was a fluctuation between 18% and 23% in the later from 1990 to 2005.
Turning to the other countries, with only 10%, the UK accounted for the lowest proportion in the first year, compared with about 12% of the USA. The period between 1990 and 2005 underwent an insignificant drop in the UK, with the exception of a slight increase in 2000. Nevertheless, the expenditure figure of the USA dipped steadily to 10% prior to rising gradually to 15% at the end of the period.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"authority expending" -> "government expenditure"
Explanation: "Authority expending" is not a standard term in English. "Government expenditure" is the correct term and is more precise and formal, suitable for academic writing.
"four distinct nations" -> "four distinct countries"
Explanation: "Nations" can sometimes imply a level of sovereignty or political unity that is not applicable to all cases. "Countries" is more neutral and appropriate for describing geographical entities.
"Looking from an overall perspective" -> "Viewed from a broader perspective"
Explanation: "Looking from an overall perspective" is somewhat informal and vague. "Viewed from a broader perspective" is more formal and academically appropriate.
"the expense of roads and transport" -> "expenditure on roads and transportation"
Explanation: "Expense" is less formal and can be vague. "Expenditure" is the correct term for formal discussions of financial outlays, and "transportation" is the more formal term compared to "transport."
"Italia" -> "Italy"
Explanation: "Italia" is the Italian word for Italy, but in English, the correct term is "Italy" when referring to the country in an English context.
"the opposite was true for USA" -> "the opposite was true in the United States"
Explanation: "USA" is an abbreviation and can be seen as informal. "United States" is the full and formal name of the country, enhancing the academic tone.
"Portugal’s government expended the most striking volume of money" -> "Portugal’s government allocated the largest volume of funds"
Explanation: "Expended" is less formal and slightly awkward in this context. "Allocated" is more precise and formal, and "funds" is more commonly used in financial contexts than "money."
"over 25%" -> "more than 25%"
Explanation: "Over" is informal and can be ambiguous. "More than" is clearer and more formal in academic writing.
"a considerable decline of about 8% to 20%" -> "a significant reduction of around 8% to 20%"
Explanation: "Decline" can imply a negative connotation, which might not be intended. "Reduction" is neutral and more suitable for formal analysis. "Around" is also preferred over "about" for precision in academic writing.
"Turning to the other countries" -> "Moving to the other countries"
Explanation: "Turning" is less formal and slightly vague. "Moving" is more precise and commonly used in formal texts.
"the UK accounted for the lowest proportion" -> "the UK had the lowest proportion"
Explanation: "Accounted for" is correct but can be slightly awkward in this context. "Had" is more direct and fits better in this sentence structure.
"an insignificant drop" -> "a negligible decrease"
Explanation: "Insignificant" can be seen as too vague and informal. "Negligible" is more precise and formal, fitting the academic style better.
"slight increase" -> "minor increase"
Explanation: "Slight" is somewhat informal and vague. "Minor" is more precise and formal, suitable for academic writing.
"dipped steadily" -> "decreased steadily"
Explanation: "Dipped" is an informal idiom and not suitable for formal writing. "Decreased" is the correct term for describing a steady reduction in quantity or amount.

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

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay addresses the requirements of the task by providing an overview of the main trends in government spending on roads and transport in four countries. The essay also presents some key features and makes comparisons where relevant. However, the essay does not fully extend the key features and some details are irrelevant or inaccurate. For example, the essay states that the UK accounted for the lowest proportion in the first year, but this is not accurate. The UK accounted for the lowest proportion in 1990, but not in the first year.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more detailed information about the key features and by ensuring that all details are accurate. The essay could also be improved by using more precise language and by avoiding unnecessary repetition. For example, the essay could be improved by stating that the UK accounted for the lowest proportion in 1990, rather than stating that the UK accounted for the lowest proportion in the first year. The essay could also be improved by using more precise language to describe the trends in government spending. For example, the essay could state that government spending on roads and transport in Portugal declined steadily from 1990 to 2005, rather than stating that government spending on roads and transport in Portugal saw a considerable decline.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay presents information in a coherent manner with a clear overall progression. The main features of the data are summarized, and comparisons are made between the countries. However, the use of cohesive devices is somewhat mechanical, and there are instances where referencing is not clear, such as the use of "the former" and "the later," which could lead to confusion. Additionally, while paragraphing is present, it is not always logically organized, particularly in the transitions between different countries’ data.
How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, the writer should focus on improving the clarity of referencing and ensuring that cohesive devices are used more naturally. Additionally, organizing paragraphs more logically by grouping similar ideas or trends together would help in presenting a clearer progression of information. Using varied sentence structures and linking phrases can also improve the flow of the essay.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary suitable for the task. The writer attempts to use less common vocabulary, such as "delineates," "proportion," and "expenditure," but there are inaccuracies in word choice and some awkward phrasing, such as "the expense of roads and transport in Italia" and "the former saw a considerable decline." Additionally, there are some errors in spelling and word formation, such as "Italia" instead of "Italy" and "the Portugal’s government" instead of "the Portuguese government." These errors do not significantly impede communication, but they do detract from the overall clarity and precision of the writing.

How to improve: To enhance lexical resource, the writer should focus on using more precise and appropriate vocabulary, ensuring correct word forms and collocations. Expanding the range of vocabulary to include more sophisticated and varied expressions would also help. Additionally, proofreading for spelling and grammatical errors can improve the overall quality of the essay. Engaging with more complex sentence structures and varied vocabulary in practice essays could also lead to a higher band score.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay demonstrates a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, which is characteristic of a Band 6. While there are some attempts at complex structures, the overall grammatical accuracy is inconsistent. There are several grammatical errors and awkward phrases that may cause some difficulty for the reader, such as "the expense of roads and transport in Italia ,Portugal and UK witnessed general downward trends" and "the former saw a considerable decline of about 8% to 20% in 2005." These errors, while not completely obstructing communication, detract from the overall clarity and effectiveness of the writing.
How to improve: To enhance the grammatical range and accuracy, the writer should focus on the following areas:

Sentence Structure: Incorporate a wider variety of complex sentence structures while ensuring they are grammatically correct.
Punctuation: Pay attention to punctuation, especially the use of commas, to improve clarity and flow.
Word Choice: Use more precise vocabulary to convey ideas more effectively, avoiding awkward phrasing.
Proofreading: Review the essay for grammatical errors and awkward constructions to ensure that the majority of sentences are error-free.

Bài sửa mẫu

The bar chart delineates the proportion of government expenditure on roads and transport in four distinct nations over a period of 15 years commencing in 1990.

Looking from an overall perspective, it is readily apparent that the expenditure on roads and transport in Italy, Portugal, and the UK witnessed general downward trends, while the opposite was true for the USA. Moreover, the Portuguese government expended the most significant volume of money on transportation.

In 1990, the Portuguese administration allocated over 25% of its national budget to roads and transport, which was higher than that of Italy at nearly 23%. However, the former saw a considerable decline of about 5% to 20% by 2005. Meanwhile, there was fluctuation between 18% and 23% in the latter from 1990 to 2005.

Turning to the other countries, with only 10%, the UK accounted for the lowest proportion in the first year, compared with about 12% for the USA. The period between 1990 and 2005 saw an insignificant drop in the UK, with the exception of a slight increase in 2000. Nevertheless, the expenditure figure for the USA dipped steadily to 10% before rising gradually to 15% by the end of the period.