The table below shows the percentage of government spending on education and training and the participation of 18-24-year-olds in five countries in 2012.

The supplied table presents data comparing the proportion of government expenditures on education and training and the level of engagement among people aged between 18 to 24 in five European countries in 2012.

Overall, the youth participation rate was consistently higher than the amount of money into education and training across five countries. Additionally, with the exception of Hungary, the four countries, namely Poland, Slovenia, Czech Republic and Romania shared the same pattern of spending, with the discrepancy between the first two countries being more remarkable than the two latter ones and the difference by youth participation levels being the same.

A closer look into the table reveals that Poland allocated a quite small amount of 5% of the total state expenditure on education and training, yet recorded the highest participation among the mentioned demographic at 44%. This latter figure was 4 percentage points higher than that of Slovenia, despite the heavy investment at a quarter of the total spending.

Concerning the three remaining countries, Czech Republic and Romania showed somewhat a similar trend as Poland and Slovenia, but with a less significant percentage. Specifically, Czech Republic saw a participation ratio of 27%, accounting three times compared to its investment at 9%, while Romania’s youth level of participation was lower by 4 percentage points, with a 10% investment rate. Strikingly, Hungary was the only country with an incomparable pattern of using expenditure, despite reporting the same trend as other four nations, with the level of participation (34%) being much higher than the spending rate (13%).

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"The supplied table" -> "The provided table"
Explanation: "Supplied" can be replaced with "provided" to maintain a more formal tone appropriate for academic writing.
"the proportion of government expenditures on education and training" -> "the allocation of government expenditures to education and training"
Explanation: "Allocation" is a more precise term in this context, suggesting the distribution of funds, which is more specific than "proportion."
"the level of engagement among people" -> "the participation rates among individuals"
Explanation: "Participation rates" is a more specific and academically precise term than "level of engagement," which is somewhat vague and informal.
"was consistently higher than the amount of money into education and training" -> "exceeded the allocation to education and training"
Explanation: "Exceeded" is a more precise verb for comparing quantities, and "allocation" is more specific than "amount of money into."
"the four countries, namely Poland, Slovenia, Czech Republic and Romania" -> "the countries of Poland, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, and Romania"
Explanation: Using "the countries of" instead of "the four countries, namely" enhances the formality and avoids redundancy.
"with the discrepancy between the first two countries being more remarkable than the two latter ones" -> "with the disparity between Poland and Slovenia being more significant than that between the Czech Republic and Romania"
Explanation: "Disparity" is more precise than "discrepancy," and specifying the countries directly avoids ambiguity.
"A closer look into the table reveals" -> "An examination of the table shows"
Explanation: "An examination of the table shows" is more formal and academically appropriate than "A closer look into the table reveals."
"quite small amount of" -> "relatively small amount"
Explanation: "Relatively small" is a more precise and formal way to describe the size of the amount compared to "quite small."
"despite the heavy investment at a quarter of the total spending" -> "despite the significant investment of a quarter of the total expenditure"
Explanation: "Significant investment" is more formal and precise than "heavy investment," and "of a quarter of the total expenditure" is clearer and more grammatically correct.
"somewhat a similar trend" -> "similar trends"
Explanation: "Similar trends" is grammatically correct and more concise than "somewhat a similar trend."
"accounting three times compared to its investment" -> "three times that of its investment"
Explanation: "Three times that of its investment" is grammatically correct and clearer than "accounting three times compared to its investment."
"Strikingly, Hungary was the only country with an incomparable pattern" -> "Notably, Hungary was the only country with a distinct pattern"
Explanation: "Notably" is more formal than "Strikingly," and "distinct" is more precise than "incomparable," which can imply extreme differences that are not necessarily true in this context.
"despite reporting the same trend as other four nations" -> "despite following the same trend as the other four nations"
Explanation: "Following" is more precise and formal than "reporting," which is less commonly used in this context.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6

Explanation: The essay addresses the requirements of the task and presents an overview of the data. The essay highlights key features and bullet points, but some details are irrelevant or inaccurate. For example, the essay states that "the discrepancy between the first two countries being more remarkable than the two latter ones" but does not provide any specific data to support this claim.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more specific data to support the claims made. For example, the essay could state that the difference in participation rates between Poland and Slovenia is 4 percentage points, while the difference in participation rates between Czech Republic and Romania is only 4 percentage points. The essay could also be improved by providing a more concise and focused overview of the data. For example, the essay could state that the data shows a general trend of higher participation rates than expenditure rates, with the exception of Hungary.

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 detailed analysis of each country’s data. However, while cohesive devices are used effectively, there are instances where cohesion between sentences could be improved, leading to some mechanical flow. The referencing is not always clear, particularly when discussing the differences in spending and participation rates. Additionally, the paragraphing is present but could be more logically structured to enhance clarity.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on enhancing the logical flow between sentences and ensuring that cohesive devices are used more naturally. Improving the clarity of referencing and substitution will also help in reducing repetition. Furthermore, organizing paragraphs more distinctly around central topics could strengthen the overall coherence of the essay.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a sufficient range of vocabulary, allowing for some flexibility and precision in conveying information. It employs less common lexical items, such as "allocated," "discrepancy," and "participation ratio," which indicates an awareness of style and collocation. However, there are occasional errors in word choice and phrasing, such as "the amount of money into education and training," which could be more clearly expressed as "the amount of money spent on education and training." Additionally, there are minor issues with word formation, such as "accounting three times compared to its investment," which could be clearer. Overall, while the vocabulary used is adequate and demonstrates some sophistication, the presence of these errors prevents a higher score.

How to improve: To enhance the lexical resource score, the writer should focus on refining word choice and ensuring clarity in phrasing. They could also benefit from using a broader range of less common vocabulary accurately and avoiding any awkward constructions. Proofreading for spelling and word formation errors would further strengthen the essay. Engaging with more sophisticated synonyms and phrases could elevate the overall quality of the vocabulary used.

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 score. While there are some effective complex structures, the essay contains several grammatical errors and awkward phrases that occasionally hinder clarity. For instance, phrases like "the discrepancy between the first two countries being more remarkable than the two latter ones" could be clearer. Additionally, there are instances of punctuation errors, such as missing commas, which affect the overall readability. However, the errors do not significantly impede communication, allowing the main ideas to be understood.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on enhancing grammatical accuracy and expanding the range of sentence structures used. This can be accomplished by proofreading for common errors, practicing more complex sentence constructions, and ensuring that punctuation is used correctly throughout the essay. Additionally, varying vocabulary and improving coherence and cohesion in the writing would contribute positively to the overall grammatical range and accuracy.

Bài sửa mẫu

The supplied table presents data comparing the proportion of government expenditures on education and training and the level of engagement among people aged 18 to 24 in five European countries in 2012.

Overall, the youth participation rate was consistently higher than the amount of money allocated to education and training across the five countries. Additionally, with the exception of Hungary, the four countries—Poland, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, and Romania—exhibited a similar pattern of spending, with the discrepancy between the first two countries being more pronounced than that of the latter two, while the differences in youth participation levels were comparable.

A closer look at the table reveals that Poland allocated a relatively small amount of 5% of its total state expenditure to education and training, yet recorded the highest participation rate among the mentioned demographic at 44%. This figure was 4 percentage points higher than that of Slovenia, despite Slovenia’s significant investment of a quarter of its total spending.

Regarding the three remaining countries, the Czech Republic and Romania displayed a somewhat similar trend to Poland and Slovenia, albeit with less significant percentages. Specifically, the Czech Republic had a participation rate of 27%, which was three times its investment of 9%, while Romania’s youth participation level was lower by 4 percentage points, with a 10% investment rate. Notably, Hungary was the only country with a distinct pattern of expenditure, despite reporting a similar trend to the other four nations, as its level of participation (34%) was considerably higher than its spending rate (13%).