The

The provided table gives data about 3 distinct sources of british policeʼs
funding in 2 consecutive years namely 2017 and 2018, while the pie charts
delineate the proportion of the budget directed to three different sectors.
Overall, all categories exhibited a preference of increasing overtime and
national government dominated the list in both timestamps. Noticeably, most of
the funding was allocated to salaries.
Observing the table,it is apparent that more than 175 millions was directed to
national government, surpassing that of local taxes and unspecified sources
which stood at around 91 millions and 28 millions, respectively. The following
year saw the most pronounced increase of approximately 11 millions in the
figure of local taxes as opposed to only 2 millions in national government‘s.
Similarly, other sources underwent a slight rise and reached 38.5m in 2018. In
general, policeʼs financial support peaked an estimated 318.6 millions from an
initial 304.7 millions .
Regarding the pie charts, at the beginning of the period, salaries accounted for
three fourths of the total subsidy, which was 5 times the size of infrastructure &
communication and around 9 times the size of technology. By 2018, the
proportion of technology nearly doubled, reached 14% while the share of
salaries shrinked to 69%. Remarkedly, building and infrastructure funding
remained static throughout the timeline.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"distinct sources of british policeʼs funding" -> "distinct sources of funding for the British police"
Explanation: Capitalizing "British" is necessary as it is a proper adjective. The phrase "funding for the British police" is clearer and more formal than "british police’s funding."
"namely 2017 and 2018" -> "specifically for the years 2017 and 2018"
Explanation: "Specifically for the years" is more formal and precise than "namely," which can sound informal in academic writing.
"exhibited a preference of increasing overtime" -> "exhibited a trend of increasing over time"
Explanation: "Trend" is more precise than "preference," which implies choice rather than a pattern of change. "Over time" is the correct phrase, as "overtime" refers to extra work hours.
"national government dominated the list in both timestamps" -> "the national government dominated the funding sources in both years"
Explanation: "Funding sources" clarifies what is being dominated, and "years" is more precise than "timestamps," which is more technical and less commonly used in this context.
"more than 175 millions" -> "more than £175 million"
Explanation: "£" clarifies the currency, and "million" should be singular when used with a specific number.
"surpassing that of local taxes and unspecified sources which stood at around 91 millions and 28 millions, respectively" -> "surpassing the amounts from local taxes and unspecified sources, which were approximately £91 million and £28 million, respectively."
Explanation: "Amounts from" is clearer than "that of," and "were" is the correct verb form. "Approximately" is more precise than "around," and the currency symbol is added for clarity.
"the most pronounced increase of approximately 11 millions in the figure of local taxes as opposed to only 2 millions in national government‘s" -> "the most pronounced increase of approximately £11 million in local taxes, compared to only £2 million in national government funding."
Explanation: "Compared to" is more formal than "as opposed to," and "funding" clarifies what is being referred to.
"other sources underwent a slight rise and reached 38.5m in 2018" -> "other sources experienced a slight increase, reaching £38.5 million in 2018."
Explanation: "Experienced" is more formal than "underwent," and "increase" is a more precise term than "rise." The currency symbol is added for clarity.
"policeʼs financial support peaked an estimated 318.6 millions from an initial 304.7 millions" -> "the police’s financial support peaked at an estimated £318.6 million, up from an initial £304.7 million."
Explanation: "Peaked at" is the correct phrase, and "up from" clarifies the comparison. The currency symbol is added for clarity, and "million" should be singular.
"salaries accounted for three fourths of the total subsidy" -> "salaries accounted for three-fourths of the total budget."
Explanation: "Three-fourths" is the correct hyphenated form, and "budget" is a more precise term than "subsidy" in this context.
"which was 5 times the size of infrastructure & communication and around 9 times the size of technology" -> "which was five times larger than the budget for infrastructure and communication, and approximately nine times larger than that for technology."
Explanation: "Five" and "nine" should be written out in academic writing. "Larger than" is more precise than "the size of," and "that for" clarifies the comparison.
"the proportion of technology nearly doubled, reached 14% while the share of salaries shrinked to 69%" -> "the proportion of the budget allocated to technology nearly doubled, reaching 14%, while the share allocated to salaries decreased to 69%."
Explanation: "Allocated to" clarifies the context, and "decreased" is the correct term instead of "shrinked," which is not standard English.
"Remarkedly, building and infrastructure funding remained static throughout the timeline" -> "Notably, funding for building and infrastructure remained static throughout the period."
Explanation: "Notably" is a more formal transition word than "Remarkedly," and "period" is more appropriate than "timeline" in this context.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6

Explanation: The essay provides an overview of the data in the table and charts, but it does not fully satisfy all the requirements of the task. The essay does not present a clear overview of the main trends, differences, or stages in the data. For example, the essay states that "all categories exhibited a preference of increasing overtime" but does not provide any specific data to support this claim. The essay also does not adequately highlight the key features of the data. For example, the essay mentions that "salaries accounted for three fourths of the total subsidy" but does not provide any further details about the proportion of the budget allocated to salaries.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing a clearer overview of the main trends, differences, or stages in the data. The essay could also be improved by highlighting the key features of the data in more detail. For example, the essay could provide specific data to support the claim that "all categories exhibited a preference of increasing overtime." The essay could also provide more details about the proportion of the budget allocated to salaries.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6

Explanation:
The essay shows a coherent organization of information and ideas with an overall logical progression, fulfilling the Band 6 descriptor. There is a clear structure with an introductory overview and specific paragraphs discussing the details of the data in the table and pie charts. However, cohesion within and between sentences feels somewhat mechanical in places, and transitions are not always smooth or natural. There is some use of cohesive devices (e.g., "Overall," "Observing the table," "Similarly," "In general"), but they do not always enhance the flow and, at times, feel forced or repetitive. Paragraphing is present but could be improved for logical clarity.

How to Improve:

Enhance Cohesion: Try to make the connections between ideas feel more natural. This can be achieved by using a wider range of cohesive devices more flexibly, avoiding repetitive phrasing, and choosing words that fit smoothly into the text.
Improve Referencing: Improve the clarity of referencing within sentences, especially when comparing data from different years. This will help avoid any potential ambiguity and improve the logical flow between ideas.
Refine Paragraphing: Although paragraphing is used, refining the structure to make each paragraph focus on a distinct element (e.g., one paragraph for the table and one for the pie charts) could improve clarity and logical organization.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary relevant to the task, which allows for basic communication of the data presented. There are attempts to use less common vocabulary, such as "delineate," "proportion," and "pronounced," but inaccuracies in word choice and collocation are present. For example, phrases like "the most pronounced increase" could be more precisely expressed, and "national government dominated the list in both timestamps" lacks clarity. Additionally, there are some spelling and grammatical errors, such as "millions" instead of "million" in certain contexts and issues with punctuation (e.g., missing spaces after commas). While these errors do not completely impede understanding, they do detract from the overall effectiveness of the communication.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on expanding their vocabulary further and using it more accurately. This includes practicing the correct collocation of words and ensuring that less common vocabulary is used appropriately. Additionally, attention should be given to grammatical accuracy and punctuation to reduce errors that may distract the reader. Engaging in more varied sentence structures and ensuring clarity in expression will also enhance the overall quality of the essay.

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 effective sentence structures, the essay contains several grammatical errors and punctuation issues that occasionally hinder clarity. For example, phrases like "more than 175 millions" should be corrected to "more than 175 million," and "the proportion of technology nearly doubled, reached 14%" would be clearer as "

Bài sửa mẫu

The provided table presents data about three distinct sources of British police funding in two consecutive years, namely 2017 and 2018, while the pie charts illustrate the proportion of the budget allocated to three different sectors. Overall, all categories exhibited a trend of increasing funding over time, with national government funding dominating the list in both years. Notably, the majority of the funding was allocated to salaries.

Examining the table, it is evident that more than £175 million was directed to the national government, surpassing local taxes and unspecified sources, which stood at approximately £91 million and £28 million, respectively. The following year saw the most significant increase of around £11 million in local taxes, compared to only £2 million in national government funding. Similarly, other sources experienced a slight rise, reaching £38.5 million in 2018. In total, police financial support peaked at an estimated £318.6 million, up from an initial £304.7 million.

Regarding the pie charts, at the beginning of the period, salaries accounted for three-fourths of the total subsidy, which was five times the size of funding for infrastructure and communication, and around nine times the size allocated to technology. By 2018, the proportion of technology funding nearly doubled, reaching 14%, while the share of salaries decreased to 69%. Remarkably, funding for building and infrastructure remained static throughout the timeline.