Duc Hoa
Duc Hoa
The table givens information on how five different schools spent their expenses on different
items in 2020. Overall, in all schools, staff salaries category made up the largest percentages,
followed by classroom facilities and finally rewards for students.
As for Virginia and Philadelphia school’s budgets, it can be witnessed the same amount of
proportions in staff salaries and rewards for students categories (roughly 16% and 3%
respectively). Considering the remaining category in both schools, Virginia school accounted for
9%, which was 3.6% lower than its counterpart.
As for Seattle school’s budget, 28.91% was spent on staff salaries, making it the highest
percentage in three mentioned items. Compared to the classroom facilities, Seattle school spent
6.43% its budget, which was 4.22% higher than expenditure for rewards for students. Likewise,
Boston school also spent the roughly same percentages on classroom facilities and rewards for
students categories (6.51% and 1.98% respectively), but this school spent 10.11% lower than
Seattle school to pay for its staff. Finally, New York school spent 32.14% their money, making it
rank first in 5 schools when regarding the staff salaries, while it had the same value (roughly 7%)
with Seattle and Boston school spent on classroom facilities. It was 2.28% higher than the last
mentioned category.
Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng
-
"The table givens" -> "The table provides"
Explanation: "Givens" is a typographical error and should be corrected to "provides" to ensure grammatical accuracy and clarity. -
"spent their expenses on different items" -> "allocated their budgets to various categories"
Explanation: "Spent their expenses" is awkward and unclear. "Allocated their budgets to various categories" is more precise and appropriate for an academic context. -
"staff salaries category" -> "staff salaries category"
Explanation: This is a typographical error and should be corrected to "salaries" to maintain consistency in plural form. -
"it can be witnessed the same amount of proportions" -> "it is evident that the proportions are similar"
Explanation: "It can be witnessed the same amount of proportions" is grammatically incorrect and awkward. "It is evident that the proportions are similar" is clearer and more formal. -
"roughly 16% and 3% respectively" -> "approximately 16% and 3%, respectively"
Explanation: "Roughly" is somewhat informal for academic writing; "approximately" is more precise and formal. Adding a comma after "respectively" is necessary for proper punctuation. -
"Virginia school accounted for 9%" -> "Virginia school allocated 9%"
Explanation: "Accounted for" is vague; "allocated" is more specific and appropriate for describing budgetary actions. -
"which was 3.6% lower than its counterpart" -> "which was 3.6% less than that of its counterpart"
Explanation: The phrase "that of its counterpart" clarifies the comparison and maintains a formal tone. -
"28.91% was spent on staff salaries" -> "28.91% was allocated to staff salaries"
Explanation: "Was spent" is somewhat informal; "was allocated" is more precise and formal in the context of budgeting. -
"making it the highest percentage in three mentioned items" -> "making it the highest proportion among the three categories"
Explanation: "Highest percentage in three mentioned items" is awkward and unclear. "Highest proportion among the three categories" is more precise and formal. -
"Likewise, Boston school also spent the roughly same percentages" -> "Similarly, Boston school also allocated roughly the same proportions"
Explanation: "Likewise" is less formal than "Similarly," and "spent the roughly same percentages" is awkward; "allocated roughly the same proportions" is more precise and formal. -
"making it rank first in 5 schools when regarding the staff salaries" -> "making it rank first among the five schools in terms of staff salaries"
Explanation: "When regarding" is informal and unclear; "in terms of" is more precise and formal. Also, "5 schools" should be "five schools" for grammatical correctness. -
"It was 2.28% higher than the last mentioned category" -> "It was 2.28% higher than the final category"
Explanation: "The last mentioned category" is vague and informal; "the final category" is clearer and more formal.
Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 5
Band Score for Task Response: 5 – UNDER WORD
-
Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay attempts to summarize the expenditure of five different schools, but it does not fully address the prompt’s requirement to analyze the data effectively. While it mentions staff salaries, classroom facilities, and rewards for students, it lacks a comprehensive overview of the data presented in the table. The essay could benefit from a clearer structure that identifies each school’s budget allocation and compares them more explicitly.
- How to improve: To better address all parts of the question, the writer should provide a clearer summary of the overall trends in the data. This could include a brief introduction that highlights key findings before diving into specific comparisons. Additionally, including a concluding statement that summarizes the main points would enhance the overall response.
-
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay lacks a clear position or argument throughout. While it provides some data, it does not convey a clear message or insight regarding the implications of the spending patterns. The use of phrases like "it can be witnessed" is vague and does not assert a strong viewpoint.
- How to improve: To present a clearer position, the writer should state their interpretation of the data more explicitly. For example, they could discuss why staff salaries dominate the budgets and what this might indicate about the schools’ priorities. A clear thesis statement in the introduction would help guide the reader through the analysis.
-
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents some ideas about budget allocation but does not extend or support them effectively. The comparisons between the schools are somewhat superficial, lacking depth in analysis. For instance, the mention of percentages is not accompanied by any insight into what these figures mean in a broader context.
- How to improve: To enhance the presentation and support of ideas, the writer should elaborate on the significance of the data. This could involve discussing potential reasons for the spending patterns or implications for the schools’ operations. Using more varied vocabulary and sentence structures would also help to make the writing more engaging.
-
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, focusing on the budget allocations of the schools. However, there are moments where the writing becomes repetitive or unclear, particularly when discussing the percentages without providing context or explanation. This can lead to confusion about the main points being made.
- How to improve: To maintain focus and relevance, the writer should avoid unnecessary repetition and ensure that each sentence contributes to the overall argument or analysis. Using clear topic sentences for each paragraph can help guide the reader and keep the discussion on track.
Overall, the essay demonstrates a basic understanding of the task but falls short in several key areas. By addressing these weaknesses and incorporating the suggested improvements, the writer can enhance their Task Response score significantly.
Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7
Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 7
-
Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents information in a generally logical manner, starting with an overview of the data before delving into specific comparisons between the schools. However, the flow could be improved. For instance, the transition from discussing Virginia and Philadelphia to Seattle and Boston feels abrupt. The use of phrases like "As for" indicates a shift, but the connections between the points could be clearer. The overall structure is somewhat effective but lacks a smooth progression between ideas.
- How to improve: To enhance logical organization, consider using more explicit transitional phrases that signal the relationship between different sections. For example, after discussing Virginia and Philadelphia, a sentence like, "In contrast, Seattle’s budget reveals a different allocation of funds," could help clarify the shift in focus. Additionally, grouping similar information together (e.g., discussing all schools’ spending on staff salaries before moving to classroom facilities) would create a more cohesive narrative.
-
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay lacks clear paragraphing, which affects readability and coherence. Currently, all information is presented in a single block of text, making it challenging for the reader to follow the argument or identify key points. Each school’s budget could be treated as a separate paragraph, which would allow for clearer comparisons and contrasts.
- How to improve: Implement a paragraph structure where each paragraph focuses on one school or one aspect of the budget. For example, one paragraph could summarize the overall trends, while subsequent paragraphs could detail the budgets of each school individually. This would not only improve clarity but also help the reader digest the information more effectively.
-
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay employs some cohesive devices, such as "As for" and "likewise," to connect ideas. However, the range is limited, and some phrases are repetitive. For instance, "As for" is used multiple times, which can make the writing feel monotonous. Additionally, the use of cohesive devices does not always enhance clarity; sometimes it creates confusion, as seen in the phrase "the last mentioned category," which could be clearer.
- How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, consider incorporating a wider variety of linking words and phrases, such as "in addition," "on the other hand," and "furthermore." These can help clarify relationships between ideas and improve the overall flow. Additionally, ensure that each cohesive device used contributes to the clarity of the argument. For example, instead of saying "the last mentioned category," specify what that category is to avoid ambiguity.
Overall, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of the task and presents relevant information, improvements in organization, paragraphing, and the use of cohesive devices will enhance coherence and cohesion, potentially raising the band score.
Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6
Band Score for Lexical Resource: 6
-
Use a Wide Range of Vocabulary:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a reasonable range of vocabulary, particularly in the context of discussing budget allocations. Phrases like "staff salaries," "classroom facilities," and "rewards for students" are appropriate and relevant. However, the vocabulary is somewhat repetitive, with similar phrases being used multiple times (e.g., "spent," "categories," "schools"). This limits the lexical variety and can detract from the overall quality of the writing.
- How to improve: To enhance the range of vocabulary, the writer could incorporate synonyms or more varied expressions. For instance, instead of repeatedly using "spent," alternatives like "allocated," "designated," or "utilized" could be employed. Additionally, using more descriptive adjectives or adverbs could add depth to the analysis (e.g., "significantly higher," "notably lower").
-
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains instances of imprecise vocabulary usage, which can lead to confusion. For example, the phrase "it can be witnessed" is awkward and not commonly used in formal writing; a more precise expression would be "it can be observed" or "it is evident." Additionally, the phrase "the roughly same percentages" is grammatically incorrect and should be "roughly the same percentages."
- How to improve: To improve precision, the writer should focus on using vocabulary that accurately conveys the intended meaning. This includes avoiding vague phrases and ensuring grammatical correctness. Reading more academic texts can help familiarize the writer with precise expressions commonly used in formal writing.
-
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains several spelling errors, such as "givens" instead of "gives," "school’s" (which should be "schools" in a plural context), and "the roughly same percentages" (which should be "roughly the same percentages"). These errors can distract the reader and undermine the credibility of the writing.
- How to improve: To enhance spelling accuracy, the writer should proofread the essay carefully before submission. Utilizing spell-check tools and reading the essay aloud can help identify errors. Additionally, the writer could maintain a personal list of commonly misspelled words and practice them regularly to improve overall spelling skills.
In summary, while the essay demonstrates a foundational understanding of vocabulary relevant to the topic, improvements in range, precision, and spelling are necessary to achieve a higher band score in the Lexical Resource criterion.
Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 6
Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 6
-
Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a moderate range of sentence structures, including simple, compound, and some complex sentences. For instance, the use of phrases like "it can be witnessed" and "considering the remaining category" indicates an attempt to incorporate more sophisticated structures. However, many sentences are quite similar in structure, which limits the overall variety. For example, the repetitive use of "As for" to introduce new schools creates a monotonous rhythm.
- How to improve: To enhance the variety of sentence structures, the writer should aim to incorporate more complex sentences that combine clauses effectively. For instance, instead of starting multiple sentences with "As for," the writer could use varied introductory phrases or clauses. Additionally, the use of relative clauses (e.g., "which accounted for…") or participial phrases could add complexity and interest to the writing.
-
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay contains several grammatical errors and punctuation issues that detract from its clarity and accuracy. For example, "the table givens information" should be "the table gives information." The phrase "Virginia and Philadelphia school’s budgets" incorrectly uses the possessive form; it should be "Virginia and Philadelphia schools’ budgets." Furthermore, there are instances of missing articles, such as "the highest percentage in three mentioned items," which should be "the highest percentage among the three mentioned items." Punctuation errors include missing commas that could clarify meaning, such as before conjunctions in compound sentences.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, the writer should focus on proofreading for common errors, such as subject-verb agreement and correct use of possessives. Practicing sentence structure variations and ensuring proper article usage will also be beneficial. Additionally, reviewing punctuation rules, especially regarding commas and conjunctions, will help enhance clarity. Engaging in targeted grammar exercises can also reinforce these skills.
In summary, while the essay demonstrates a reasonable attempt at using varied structures and maintaining grammatical accuracy, there are notable areas for improvement. By diversifying sentence structures and focusing on grammatical precision, the writer can enhance the overall quality of their writing.
Bài sửa mẫu
The table provides information on how five different schools allocated their budgets to various categories in 2020. Overall, in all schools, the staff salaries category made up the largest percentages, followed by classroom facilities, and finally rewards for students.
As for the budgets of Virginia and Philadelphia schools, it is evident that the proportions for staff salaries and rewards for students were similar (approximately 16% and 3%, respectively). Considering the remaining category in both schools, Virginia school allocated 9%, which was 3.6% lower than that of its counterpart.
Regarding Seattle school’s budget, 28.91% was allocated to staff salaries, making it the highest proportion among the three categories mentioned. Compared to the classroom facilities, Seattle school spent 6.43% of its budget, which was 4.22% higher than the expenditure for rewards for students. Similarly, Boston school also allocated roughly the same proportions for classroom facilities and rewards for students (6.51% and 1.98%, respectively), but this school spent 10.11% less than Seattle school on staff salaries.
Finally, New York school allocated 32.14% of its budget to staff salaries, making it rank first among the five schools in terms of this category. It had the same value (roughly 7%) for classroom facilities as Seattle and Boston schools. This figure was 2.28% higher than the expenditure for the last mentioned category.
