The given graph shows the past and projected figures of the government spending as a percentage of GDP for the years 2000 to 2025 in three areas. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant.

The provided line graph illustrates the past and predicted government’s expenditure of GDP in three fields, including education, health as well as roads and railways during the period of 25 years from 2000 to 2025.

Overall, it is obvious that health accounted for the highest rate and is also forecasted to surge considerably in the future. On the other hand, education, roads and railways experienced a downward trend throughout the time.

In 2000, the disbursement for health, roads and railways was fairly modest, at 4%, which was 1% lower than that of education. However, in 2005, the proportion of GDP allocated for health increased to approximately 5,5%, demonstrating the growing concerns for health services. After this year, the figure of health continued to climb, and is expected to reach its highest peak in 2025, at about 7,5%.

On the contrary, it was surprising that the percentage of education, roads and railways witnessed a decline. Roads and railways show some fluctuation when falling and hitting the lowest point of 3% in 2010, then gently rising to 4% in 2020. Education exhibits a 1% dip in terms of GDP spending to 4% in 2020. These two sectors are both calculated to decrease afterwards.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"The provided line graph" -> "The graph illustrates"
Explanation: Simplifying "The provided line graph" to "The graph illustrates" removes unnecessary words and enhances the formal tone by focusing directly on the subject matter.
"government’s expenditure of GDP" -> "government expenditure as a percentage of GDP"
Explanation: Changing "government’s expenditure of GDP" to "government expenditure as a percentage of GDP" clarifies the meaning and aligns with standard economic terminology, which typically uses "as a percentage of GDP" to describe such data.
"health as well as roads and railways" -> "health, roads, and railways"
Explanation: Using a comma instead of "as well as" improves the flow and formality of the sentence, aligning with academic style.
"is also forecasted to surge considerably" -> "is also expected to increase significantly"
Explanation: Replacing "forecasted" with "expected" and "surge" with "increase" uses more precise and formal language appropriate for academic writing.
"experienced a downward trend" -> "showed a declining trend"
Explanation: "Showed a declining trend" is a more precise and formal way to describe the direction of change in data over time.
"the disbursement for health, roads and railways was fairly modest" -> "the allocation for health, roads, and railways was relatively modest"
Explanation: "Allocation" is more specific and formal than "disbursement" in this context, and "relatively" is preferred over "fairly" for academic writing.
"approximately 5,5%" -> "approximately 5.5%"
Explanation: Correcting the decimal point from "5,5%" to "5.5%" adheres to standard numerical formatting in academic writing.
"the figure of health" -> "the proportion allocated to health"
Explanation: "The proportion allocated to health" is more precise and formal, clearly indicating the type of data being discussed.
"it was surprising that" -> "it is noteworthy that"
Explanation: "It is noteworthy that" replaces the informal "it was surprising that" with a more formal and objective tone suitable for academic writing.
"witnessed a decline" -> "experienced a decline"
Explanation: "Experienced" is more commonly used in academic contexts to describe changes in data over time.
"show some fluctuation when falling and hitting the lowest point of 3% in 2010" -> "experienced fluctuations, reaching a low of 3% in 2010"
Explanation: "Experienced fluctuations, reaching a low of 3% in 2010" is a more precise and formal way to describe the data pattern.
"gently rising" -> "gradually increasing"
Explanation: "Gradually increasing" is a more formal and precise term than "gently rising," which is somewhat informal and vague.
"These two sectors are both calculated to decrease afterwards" -> "These two sectors are projected to decrease subsequently"
Explanation: "Projected" is more specific and formal than "calculated," and "subsequently" is a more precise temporal indicator than "afterwards."

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7

Explanation: The essay provides a clear overview of the main trends in the graph, highlighting the key features of the data. The essay also makes comparisons between the three areas of government spending. However, the essay could be more fully extended by providing more specific details about the trends and comparisons.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more specific details about the trends and comparisons. For example, the essay could state that health spending increased by approximately 1.5% between 2000 and 2005, and that education spending decreased by approximately 1% between 2000 and 2020. The essay could also provide more specific comparisons between the three areas of government spending, such as stating that health spending was consistently higher than education spending throughout the period.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay arranges information and ideas coherently, presenting a clear overall progression from the introduction to the conclusion. However, while it uses cohesive devices effectively, there are instances where cohesion within and between sentences is somewhat mechanical or unclear. For example, the transition between the discussion of health expenditure and the decline in education and infrastructure spending could be smoother. Additionally, paragraphing is present but not always logical, as the second paragraph could be more effectively divided to enhance clarity.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on improving the logical flow between ideas and enhancing the use of cohesive devices to avoid mechanical repetition. More varied and sophisticated linking phrases could help in creating smoother transitions. Additionally, refining paragraph structure to ensure that each paragraph contains a single clear topic would enhance coherence. Finally, ensuring that all data points are clearly referenced and discussed would strengthen the overall cohesion 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. It attempts to use less common vocabulary, such as "disbursement" and "surge," but there are noticeable inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, such as "health accounted for the highest rate" and "the figure of health continued to climb." There are also some errors in spelling and word formation, such as "5,5%" instead of "5.5%" and "7,5%" instead of "7.5%." While these errors do not severely impede communication, they do detract from the overall clarity and precision of the essay.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on using a wider range of vocabulary accurately, ensuring that word choices are precise and appropriate for the context. Additionally, attention should be paid to spelling and numerical formatting to avoid errors that could confuse the reader. Practicing the use of synonyms and varying sentence structures can also enhance lexical resource and overall fluency.

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 performance. While there are some attempts at using complex structures, the essay contains several grammatical errors and awkward phrasing that occasionally hinder clarity. For example, phrases like "the government’s expenditure of GDP" and "the percentage of education, roads and railways witnessed a decline" could be expressed more clearly. Additionally, punctuation errors, such as the use of commas in numerical figures (e.g., "5,5%" instead of "5.5%"), detract from the overall accuracy. Despite these issues, the communication of the main features and comparisons is generally effective, which aligns with the criteria for Band 6.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on enhancing grammatical accuracy by reviewing sentence structures and ensuring correct punctuation, particularly in numerical contexts. Increasing the variety of complex sentences while maintaining clarity will also be beneficial. Additionally, proofreading for minor errors and awkward phrasing can help improve overall coherence and fluency.

Bài sửa mẫu

The provided line graph illustrates the past and projected government expenditure as a percentage of GDP in three sectors: education, health, and roads and railways, over a 25-year period from 2000 to 2025.

Overall, it is evident that health accounted for the highest proportion and is also forecasted to surge significantly in the future. In contrast, education, along with roads and railways, experienced a downward trend throughout this period.

In 2000, the expenditure for health, roads, and railways was relatively modest, at 4%, which was 1% lower than that of education. However, by 2005, the proportion of GDP allocated to health increased to approximately 5.5%, reflecting the growing concerns regarding health services. Following this year, health expenditure continued to rise and is expected to reach its peak in 2025, at about 7.5%.

Conversely, it is noteworthy that the percentages for education and roads and railways experienced a decline. The expenditure on roads and railways showed some fluctuations, falling to a low of 3% in 2010 before gently rising to 4% in 2020. Education also exhibited a 1% decrease in GDP spending, dropping to 4% in 2020. Both sectors are projected to decline further thereafter.