The bar chart below shows the percentage of government spending on roads and transport in 4 countries in the years 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005. Summarise the information and Write at least 150 words.

The bar chart below shows the percentage of government spending on roads and transport in 4 countries in the years 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005.

Summarise the information and Write at least 150 words.

The bar chart illustrates the proportion of budget which authorities invested in roads and transport in four different countries in the years 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005.
Overall, it is apparent that the rate of expenditure on road and vehicles witnessed a significant fluctuation with the growth and decline continuously in Italia, the UK, the USA through the years examined. Meanwhile, this figure for Portugal dropped strikingly over the period but it still always allocated the highest percentage compared to others.
As can be seen, Portugal recorded the greatest ratio of money which was spent on road and transport, approximately north of a quarter which was nearly three times as much as that statistic of the USA in 1990. Then the percentage of expenditure invested in Portugal plummeted to about a fifth in 2005 while this data in the USA experienced a considerable increase by 5 percent, about 15% in 2005.
Furthermore, the proportion in budget spent on infrastructure by the government in Intalia and UK fluctuated over the period researched. The money spent on these sectors in Italia was double that of in the UK, approximately 22% and 10 % in turn. Then these statistics in both saw a minimal drop in 1995 and peaked in 1995, with 23% and 13% respectively. The expenditure for building roads and tránport in both nations fell around by 5% in 2005.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

1. "growth and decline continuously" -> "continuous fluctuations"
   Explanation: "growth and decline continuously" is awkward and lacks precision. "Continuous fluctuations" better conveys the idea of a continual variation in expenditure.

2. "Italia" -> "Italy"
   Explanation: "Italia" is the Latin name for Italy, while "Italy" is the modern English term. Using "Italy" ensures clarity and conforms to standard English usage.

3. "witnessed a significant fluctuation with the growth and decline continuously" -> "experienced significant fluctuations, with continuous growth and decline"
   Explanation: Restructuring the sentence for clarity and coherence. "Experienced significant fluctuations" succinctly conveys the idea, and rearranging the phrase "with continuous growth and decline" improves readability.

4. "this figure for Portugal dropped strikingly" -> "the expenditure for Portugal dropped significantly"
   Explanation: "This figure for Portugal dropped strikingly" is imprecise and lacks clarity. Replacing it with "the expenditure for Portugal dropped significantly" provides a clearer description of the budget decrease.

5. "still always allocated" -> "consistently allocated"
   Explanation: "Still always allocated" is redundant and awkward. "Consistently allocated" maintains the intended meaning more effectively.

6. "ratio of money" -> "proportion of funds"
   Explanation: "Ratio of money" is an inaccurate expression. "Proportion of funds" accurately describes the allocation of financial resources.

7. "approximately north of a quarter" -> "just over a quarter"
   Explanation: "Approximately north of a quarter" is an unusual and imprecise phrase. "Just over a quarter" is a clearer and more standard way to express the idea.

8. "nearly three times as much as that statistic of the USA" -> "almost three times the amount spent in the USA"
   Explanation: "Nearly three times as much as that statistic of the USA" is convoluted. Simplifying to "almost three times the amount spent in the USA" enhances clarity and conciseness.

9. "then the percentage of expenditure invested" -> "subsequently, the percentage of expenditure"
   Explanation: Adding "subsequently" improves the flow of the sentence and provides temporal clarity.

10. "this data in the USA experienced a considerable increase by 5 percent" -> "expenditure in the USA experienced a significant increase of 5 percent"
    Explanation: "This data in the USA experienced a considerable increase by 5 percent" is awkward. Restructuring to "expenditure in the USA experienced a significant increase of 5 percent" improves clarity and readability.

11. "the proportion in budget spent on infrastructure" -> "the proportion of the budget allocated to infrastructure"
    Explanation: "The proportion in budget spent on infrastructure" is grammatically incorrect. "The proportion of the budget allocated to infrastructure" is a clearer and more accurate expression.

12. "Intalia" -> "Italy"
    Explanation: Same correction as in point 2. "Intalia" should be "Italy" for correctness and clarity.

13. "saw a minimal drop in 1995 and peaked in 1995" -> "experienced a slight decline in 1995 and reached its peak in 1995"
    Explanation: "Saw a minimal drop in 1995 and peaked in 1995" is contradictory. Replacing it with "experienced a slight decline in 1995 and reached its peak in 1995" resolves the inconsistency.

14. "tránport" -> "transport"
    Explanation: Correcting the typo "tránport" to "transport" ensures accuracy and readability.

15. "fell around by 5% in 2005" -> "decreased by approximately 5% in 2005"
    Explanation: "Fell around by 5% in 2005" is imprecise. "Decreased by approximately 5% in 2005" provides a clearer description of the budget reduction.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

[
Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay addresses the task by summarizing the information presented in the bar chart. It provides an overview of the main trends in government spending on roads and transport in four countries over the years 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005. The key features are highlighted, such as the fluctuation in spending rates in each country and the comparison between them. However, the essay could be improved by providing more specific and accurate details, such as exact percentages rather than approximations, and by ensuring a clearer structure and coherence in presenting the information.
How to improve: To improve, provide more specific and accurate details, such as exact percentages, and ensure a clearer structure and coherence in presenting the information. Avoid repetition and strive for a more concise and focused analysis of the data. Remember to maintain an objective and factual tone throughout the essay.
]

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates a moderate level of coherence and cohesion. The organization of information and ideas is generally clear, with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. Each paragraph addresses a specific aspect of the data presented in the bar chart. The progression of ideas is evident, as the essay discusses the spending patterns of each country over the given years. Additionally, the use of cohesive devices is somewhat effective, although there are instances of faulty cohesion within and between sentences. For example, some sentences lack clarity due to grammatical errors or awkward phrasing, affecting the overall flow of the essay. However, the central topic of each paragraph is discernible, contributing to coherence.

How to improve:
To enhance coherence and cohesion, focus on improving the clarity and logical flow of the essay. Ensure that each sentence contributes to the overall coherence of the text by using clear and concise language. Pay attention to sentence structure and grammar to eliminate errors that may hinder understanding. Additionally, use cohesive devices more effectively to establish logical connections between ideas and paragraphs. Finally, maintain consistency in paragraphing to ensure a logical progression of thought throughout the essay.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a somewhat limited range of vocabulary, with repetitive phrases and a lack of variety in expression. While some attempt is made to use specific vocabulary related to the topic of government spending on roads and transport, there are noticeable errors in word choice and word formation throughout the essay. For example, "tránport" instead of "transport," "Intalia" instead of "Italy," and "north of a quarter" instead of "just over a quarter." These errors and lack of precision in vocabulary usage hinder the overall clarity and sophistication of the essay’s language.

How to improve: To enhance the lexical resource of the essay and achieve a higher band score, focus on expanding the range of vocabulary used. Instead of repeating phrases like "the proportion in budget spent," vary the language to convey the same idea in different ways. Additionally, pay attention to accuracy in word choice and spelling to avoid errors that may confuse the reader. Proofreading and revising the essay for clarity and precision will help to improve its lexical quality.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates an attempt to use a variety of structures, including both simple and complex sentences. However, there are frequent grammatical errors and inaccuracies throughout the essay, which hinder clarity and comprehension. Some sentences lack coherence due to awkward phrasing or incorrect word choices. While there is an effort to present a summary of the information provided in the prompt, the execution is marred by grammatical issues.

How to improve: To improve the grammatical range and accuracy, the writer should focus on using a wider variety of sentence structures and strive for greater precision in language use. Attention to grammatical rules, punctuation, and word choice is essential. Proofreading and editing for errors can significantly enhance the clarity and coherence of the essay. Additionally, practicing writing with a focus on accuracy and complexity of sentences will aid in achieving a higher band score.

Bài sửa mẫu

The provided bar chart delineates the allocation of government funds towards roads and transportation infrastructure in four distinct countries across the years 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005.

In general, there was noticeable variability in the expenditure on roads and vehicles across Italia, the UK, the USA, and Portugal throughout the specified timeframe. Notably, Portugal consistently maintained the highest percentage of expenditure, albeit experiencing a significant decline over the years.

Beginning with Portugal, it is evident that it allocated the largest portion of its budget towards road and transport infrastructure, hovering around a quarter of the total budget in 1990, which was nearly triple the allocation of the USA. However, this percentage dwindled to approximately a fifth by 2005. Conversely, the USA witnessed a notable rise in expenditure by approximately 5% over the same period.

Turning to Italia and the UK, both countries experienced fluctuations in their infrastructure spending. Italia consistently invested a larger proportion compared to the UK, approximately 22% versus 10% respectively in 1990. However, both countries saw a slight decline in 1995 before peaking again in 2000, followed by a decrease of around 5% by 2005.

In essence, the data illustrates the dynamic nature of government spending on roads and transportation infrastructure across the examined nations and years.