The

The

The given table and pie charts provide data about the police budget in 2017 and
2018 in one area of Britain. The table depicts the origin of money while the pie charts
illustrates what was that money used for.

From an overall perspective, there were three sources of money, in order from
largest to smallest, which were the government, local taxes and other sources.
Simultaneously, that money was used for three main purposes, focus on the police’
salaries, following by the facilities, transport and technology.

Commencing with the sources of the police budget, the largest source was from the
national government, with a total of 175,5 million dollars in2017. After 1 year, the
money increased to 177,8 million dollars. The second money supply was from the
local taxes, in 2017, it provided 91,2 million dollars for the security forces. In 2018,
the amount of money from this supply was 102,3 million dollars. Moreover, there
were some other sources, such as grants, which provided 38 and 38,5 million dollars
in 2017 and in 2018, respectively. In total, the local security forces earned 304,7
million dollars in 2017 and 318,6 million dollars in 2018.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

1. "illustrates what was that money used for" -> "illustrates how that money was utilized"
   Explanation: The phrase "what was that money used for" is awkward and informal. "How that money was utilized" is more precise and aligns with formal academic language.

2. "focus on the police’ salaries, following by the facilities, transport and technology" -> "focusing on police salaries, followed by expenditures on facilities, transport, and technology"
   Explanation: "Focus on" should be changed to "focusing on" for grammatical consistency. "Following by" is incorrect; "followed by" is the correct form. Additionally, "expenditures on" is a more formal and precise way to describe how the budget is allocated.

3. "the largest source was from the national government" -> "the largest source originated from the national government"
   Explanation: "Was from" is informal; "originated from" is more precise and formal, enhancing the academic tone.

4. "with a total of 175,5 million dollars in2017" -> "with a total of 175.5 million dollars in 2017"
   Explanation: The comma should be replaced with a period for numerical formatting in English. Additionally, there should be a space between "in" and "2017" for clarity.

5. "the second money supply was from the local taxes" -> "the second source of funding was local taxes"
   Explanation: "Money supply" is vague and can be misinterpreted; "source of funding" is clearer and more appropriate in an academic context.

6. "it provided 91,2 million dollars for the security forces" -> "it provided 91.2 million dollars for law enforcement"
   Explanation: Similar to the previous point, the comma should be replaced with a period. Additionally, "law enforcement" is a more formal term than "security forces."

7. "the amount of money from this supply was 102,3 million dollars" -> "the amount of funding from this source was 102.3 million dollars"
   Explanation: "Funding" is a more precise term than "money," and "source" aligns better with formal academic language.

8. "there were some other sources, such as grants" -> "there were additional sources, such as grants"
   Explanation: "Some other sources" is vague; "additional sources" is more concise and formal.

9. "which provided 38 and 38,5 million dollars in 2017 and in 2018, respectively" -> "which provided 38 million dollars in 2017 and 38.5 million dollars in 2018, respectively"
   Explanation: The phrase is restructured for clarity and the comma is replaced with a period for proper numerical formatting.

10. "In total, the local security forces earned 304,7 million dollars in 2017 and 318,6 million dollars in 2018" -> "In total, the local law enforcement agencies received 304.7 million dollars in 2017 and 318.6 million dollars in 2018"
    Explanation: "Earned" is informal; "received" is more appropriate in this context. "Law enforcement agencies" is a more formal and accurate term than "local security forces."

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6

Explanation: The essay provides an overview of the data in the table and pie 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 in the data. For example, the essay does not mention that the police budget increased from 2017 to 2018. The essay also does not adequately highlight the key features of the data. For example, the essay does not mention that the largest proportion of the police budget was spent on salaries in both 2017 and 2018.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing a clearer overview of the main trends in the data. The essay could also be improved by highlighting the key features of the data more effectively. For example, the essay could mention that the police budget increased from 2017 to 2018 and that the largest proportion of the police budget was spent on salaries in both 2017 and 2018.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay presents information in a coherent manner, with a clear overall progression from the introduction to the detailed analysis of the data. The structure is logical, with distinct sections addressing the sources of the police budget and their uses. However, the use of cohesive devices is somewhat mechanical, and there are instances where the referencing could be clearer. For example, phrases like "that money" and "the second money supply" could be more explicitly linked to their antecedents to enhance clarity. Additionally, while paragraphing is present, it could be improved to better delineate ideas and ensure that each paragraph presents a clear central topic.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the essay should focus on improving the clarity and variety of cohesive devices used. This can be done by incorporating a wider range of linking words and phrases to enhance the flow of ideas. Additionally, ensuring that each paragraph has a clear central topic and that transitions between paragraphs are smooth will strengthen the overall coherence. Lastly, proofreading for grammatical accuracy and clarity will help to eliminate any mechanical errors that detract from the essay’s cohesion.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary relevant to the task, with some attempts to use less common vocabulary. However, there are noticeable inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, such as "the money increased" which could be more precisely stated as "the budget increased." Additionally, there are errors in spelling and word formation, such as "illustrates what was that money used for," which affects clarity but does not completely impede communication. Overall, while the vocabulary used is sufficient for the task, it lacks the sophistication and precision required for a higher band score.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on expanding their vocabulary range and using more precise language. They should also pay attention to collocations and common phrases to improve fluency. Additionally, minimizing spelling and grammatical errors will enhance clarity and overall communication. Practicing the use of varied sentence structures and incorporating more sophisticated vocabulary can also contribute to a better score in the Lexical Resource criteria.

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 it does convey the information clearly, there are several grammatical errors and awkward phrasing that detract from the overall accuracy. For example, phrases like "the pie charts illustrates what was that money used for" contain subject-verb agreement errors and incorrect word order. Additionally, the use of "the second money supply" is somewhat awkward and could be improved for clarity. Despite these issues, the errors do not significantly impede communication, which keeps the score from dropping further.

How to improve: To enhance the grammatical range and accuracy, the writer should focus on the following areas:

1. Subject-Verb Agreement: Ensure that subjects and verbs agree in number (e.g., "the pie charts illustrate" instead of "illustrates").
2. Sentence Structure: Use a wider variety of complex sentence structures while maintaining clarity. Avoid awkward phrasing and ensure that sentences flow logically.
3. Punctuation: Pay attention to punctuation, particularly in separating clauses and using commas correctly.
4. Proofreading: Review the essay for minor errors and awkward constructions that can be corrected to improve overall readability and accuracy.

Bài sửa mẫu

The given table and pie charts provide data about the police budget in 2017 and 2018 in one area of Britain. The table depicts the sources of funding, while the pie charts illustrate how that money was allocated.

From an overall perspective, there were three sources of funding, listed in order from largest to smallest: the government, local taxes, and other sources. Simultaneously, this money was used for three main purposes, focusing on police salaries, followed by facilities, transport, and technology.

Commencing with the sources of the police budget, the largest contributor was the national government, which provided a total of 175.5 million dollars in 2017. After one year, this amount increased to 177.8 million dollars. The second source of funding came from local taxes, which contributed 91.2 million dollars for the security forces in 2017. In 2018, the amount from this source rose to 102.3 million dollars. Additionally, there were other sources, such as grants, which provided 38 million dollars in 2017 and 38.5 million dollars in 2018, respectively. In total, the local security forces received 304.7 million dollars in 2017 and 318.6 million dollars in 2018.