Percentage of government spending on road and transport (1990-2005)

The bar chart compares the expenditure on road and transport of four different countries, namely Portugal, Italy, the UK, and the USA over 10-year period.
Overall, Portugal government spent the most money on road and transport among four countries despite there was a downward trend on spending while the the USA witnessed an opposite trend in investing in road and transport. Italy and the UK shared similar trend, declining slightly after a decade albeit small fluctuations.
In 1990, approximately 26% of state budget was spend on road and transport in Portugal, which took lead, however, by 2005, the government budget on this purpose had continually decreased to only 20%. Notably, the decreases in Portugal nearly corresponded with the increases in the USA, with the figure starting at over 10% in 1990 and finishing the period at 15%, despite its slight decline in 1995 back to 10%.
Initially, Italian's government spend around 22% on road and transport before it gradually dropped to 20% after 5 years. Although the spending on this category recovered in 2000, increasing slightly to approximately 24%, it was not maintained, falling back to below 20%, lower than the initial point. The expenditure in the UK relatively mirrored this fluctuating trend, with starting point nearly being half of Italy's one (10%) and slightly fell to about 9% in 1995. In spite of its rise after 5-year period in 2000, by 2005, it had fallen back to about 7%, considerably lower than any other countries.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

"despite there was a downward trend" -> "despite there being a downward trend"
Explanation: "Despite there being a downward trend" maintains grammatical accuracy by using the gerund form "being" after "there." This construction ensures clarity and coherence in the sentence structure.
"while the the USA" -> "while the USA"
Explanation: Removing the repeated "the" before "USA" corrects the redundancy in the sentence, enhancing its clarity and conciseness.
"declining slightly after a decade albeit small fluctuations" -> "experiencing slight declines over the decade, albeit with minor fluctuations"
Explanation: The revised phrase "experiencing slight declines over the decade, albeit with minor fluctuations" provides a clearer and more sophisticated description of the trend, avoiding awkward syntax and repetition.
"spend" -> "spent"
Explanation: "Spent" is the correct past tense form of "spend," aligning with the past tense context of the sentence.
"government budget on this purpose" -> "government’s budget for this purpose"
Explanation: Restructuring the phrase to "government’s budget for this purpose" improves clarity and grammatical correctness by properly indicating possession.
"Notably, the decreases in Portugal nearly corresponded with the increases in the USA" -> "Significantly, the decreases in Portugal corresponded closely with the increases in the USA"
Explanation: The revised sentence maintains the original meaning while enhancing clarity and sophistication through the use of "significantly" and "closely."
"Initially, Italian’s government spend around 22% on road and transport" -> "Initially, the Italian government spent around 22% on road and transport"
Explanation: Correcting the syntax by removing the apostrophe and adding "the" before "Italian government" ensures grammatical accuracy and clarity in the sentence.
"Although the spending on this category recovered" -> "Although spending in this category recovered"
Explanation: Removing the article "the" before "spending" improves the flow of the sentence and reduces unnecessary repetition, resulting in a more concise and polished expression.
"expenditure in the UK relatively mirrored this fluctuating trend" -> "expenditure in the UK mirrored this fluctuating trend relatively"
Explanation: Placing "relatively" after "mirrored" improves the sentence’s clarity by indicating the relative comparison more effectively.
"with starting point nearly being half of Italy’s one" -> "with a starting point nearly half that of Italy’s"
Explanation: The revised phrase is more concise and clearer in expressing the comparison between the starting points of the two countries’ expenditures on road and transport.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation:
The essay adequately addresses the requirements of the task by providing an overview of the percentage of government spending on road and transport for four different countries over a 10-year period. It presents an overview with information appropriately selected, covering the main trends in spending for each country. Key features, such as initial spending percentages and trends over time, are highlighted, although some details may be irrelevant or inaccurately presented.

How to improve:
To improve, the essay could provide more precise and accurate descriptions of the trends observed in government spending for each country. Additionally, ensuring that all details presented are relevant to the main trends and avoiding unnecessary repetition can enhance clarity and coherence.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates coherence and cohesion to a reasonable extent. It arranges information logically, with a clear overall progression from an introduction to comparisons between countries. The essay utilizes cohesive devices effectively to connect ideas within and between sentences, although there are instances of mechanical or faulty cohesion, such as repetitive use of certain phrases ("road and transport"). Paragraphing is used, but not always logically; for instance, the paragraph discussing Italy’s expenditure could be better structured for clarity. However, the central topic of each paragraph is clear, aiding in the overall organization of the essay.

How to improve: To improve coherence and cohesion, focus on refining the structure of paragraphs to ensure a smoother flow of ideas. Avoid repetitive language by employing synonyms or rephrasing sentences where necessary. Pay attention to cohesive devices to ensure they enhance the logical connection between ideas without becoming overly repetitive or mechanical. Additionally, ensure that paragraph transitions are seamless to enhance the overall coherence of the essay.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary for the task, employing varied expressions such as "expenditure," "government budget," and "state budget." It also attempts to use less common vocabulary, like "albeit" and "fluctuations." While there are some inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, such as "declining slightly after a decade" (should be "declining slightly over a decade"), overall, the essay effectively communicates its message with appropriate vocabulary.

How to improve: To enhance lexical resource, focus on using more precise and varied vocabulary consistently throughout the essay. Pay attention to word choice and collocation to ensure accurate expression of ideas. Additionally, aim to minimize errors in spelling and word formation to further improve clarity and coherence.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a mix of simple and complex sentence forms. There is a variety of sentence structures used throughout the essay, including compound and complex sentences. However, there are some errors in grammar and punctuation present, such as missing articles ("the USA witnessed") and subject-verb agreement issues ("government spend"). Despite these errors, they do not significantly hinder communication.

How to improve: To improve the grammatical range and accuracy, pay closer attention to subject-verb agreement, article usage, and sentence structure consistency. Proofreading for punctuation errors, especially comma splices and missing commas in compound sentences, can enhance the overall clarity and coherence of the essay. Additionally, strive for more complex sentence structures to showcase a higher level of language proficiency.

Bài sửa mẫu

The provided bar chart illustrates the percentage of government expenditure allocated to road and transport infrastructure in four distinct countries, namely Portugal, Italy, the UK, and the USA, spanning from 1990 to 2005.

Overall, Portugal allocated the highest proportion of its budget to road and transport infrastructure among the four countries, despite experiencing a downward trend in expenditure. Conversely, the USA witnessed a contrasting trend, with an upward trajectory in investment in road and transport infrastructure. Italy and the UK demonstrated a similar pattern, experiencing slight declines over the decade, albeit with minor fluctuations.

In 1990, Portugal allocated approximately 26% of its state budget to road and transport infrastructure, establishing a leading position. However, by 2005, this allocation had steadily decreased to only 20%. Remarkably, the decrease in Portugal’s expenditure corresponded closely with the increase observed in the USA, which began at over 10% in 1990 and reached 15% by the end of the period, despite a slight decline in 1995 back to 10%.

Initially, the Italian government allocated around 22% of its budget to road and transport infrastructure, a figure that gradually declined to 20% after five years. Although expenditure in this category experienced a temporary recovery in 2000, increasing slightly to approximately 24%, this upward trend was not sustained, falling below the initial point. Expenditure in the UK followed a similar fluctuating trend, commencing at nearly half of Italy’s initial allocation (10%) and decreasing slightly to about 9% in 1995. Despite a subsequent increase after a five-year period in 2000, by 2005, expenditure had decreased to approximately 7%, notably lower than that of the other countries.