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

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

The chart illustrates the proportion of government allocation on transportation and streets in 4 different countries from 1990 to 2005.

The US experienced the increase in the fraction for transport and pathway payment,the reverse was true for others. In 1990, Portugal made the most significant contribution to the percentage of public expense, compared to the lowest fraction in this figure for the UK in 1995. Overall, throughout the years, the government in Portugal spent most in this field.

In 1990, the percentage for roadway and transport in Italy stood at around 22, in comparison with more than 25% of this figure of Portugal. Over the next 5 years, there was a similar decrease in the proportion of government payment on public service, with the gap approximately 4 ( 20% and 24% respectively). Until the end of the timescale, both Italy and Portugal dropped to about 20%.

In the beginning, the rate of regime cost on roadway and transportation in the UK began at 10, when this figure for the USA was more than 10. At the end of the period, a minimal decrease of around 3% was seen in the percentage of expenditure’s government . By contrast, USA was the only country to rise in this figure, to 15%

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

1. "fraction for transport and pathway payment" -> "allocation for transportation and infrastructure expenses"
   Explanation: Replacing "fraction for transport and pathway payment" with "allocation for transportation and infrastructure expenses" enhances precision and clarity, avoiding ambiguous terms like "fraction" and providing a more specific description of the government’s expenditure.

2. "the government in Portugal spent most in this field" -> "Portugal’s government allocated the highest budget to this sector."
   Explanation: The phrase "the government in Portugal spent most in this field" can be refined for clarity and conciseness by stating "Portugal’s government allocated the highest budget to this sector," providing a more direct and precise expression of the idea.

3. "the percentage for roadway and transport in Italy stood at around 22" -> "Italy’s allocation for road and transportation accounted for approximately 22%."
   Explanation: Restructuring the sentence to "Italy’s allocation for road and transportation accounted for approximately 22%" enhances clarity and readability by specifying the context of the percentage, thereby avoiding potential ambiguity.

4. "there was a similar decrease in the proportion of government payment on public service" -> "a parallel decline occurred in the government’s allocation for public services."
   Explanation: The phrase "there was a similar decrease in the proportion of government payment on public service" is clarified by stating "a parallel decline occurred in the government’s allocation for public services," providing a more precise description of the trend.

5. "the rate of regime cost on roadway and transportation" -> "government expenditure on road and transportation infrastructure"
   Explanation: Replacing "the rate of regime cost on roadway and transportation" with "government expenditure on road and transportation infrastructure" improves the choice of vocabulary, opting for more precise and formal terms to describe government spending in this area.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation:
The essay effectively covers the requirements of the task by presenting a clear overview of the main trends in government spending on roads and transport in four countries over the specified period. It appropriately highlights key features and bullet points, such as the varying trends in each country and the overall changes in expenditure percentages.

The introduction provides a concise summary of the chart’s content and sets the stage for the subsequent analysis. The writer makes a commendable effort to present an overview by comparing the countries and noting changes over time. However, there is room for improvement in terms of fully extending the analysis, especially in discussing specific data points and trends.

The essay demonstrates an understanding of the data, effectively comparing the percentages of government spending in different countries and years. There is clarity in conveying the major changes, such as the increase in the US and the overall decrease in Italy and Portugal.

How to improve:
To enhance the essay and potentially achieve a higher band score, consider the following suggestions:

1. Provide more specific details and data points: While the essay offers a general overview, incorporating specific percentages and figures for each country and year would strengthen the analysis.
2. Ensure a more consistent and accurate use of language: Some phrases are unclear or repetitive, and there are minor grammatical issues. Review and refine the language to enhance clarity and precision.
3. Expand on the analysis: While the essay touches on the major trends, expanding on the reasons behind the changes or providing deeper insights into the data could further elevate the response.

Overall, the essay is well-structured and meets the requirements for a Band 7.0, but incorporating these improvements will contribute to a more comprehensive and nuanced analysis.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay presents a generally clear progression of ideas, discussing the percentages of government spending on transportation in four countries over a 15-year period. There’s an attempt at organizing information chronologically, comparing the proportions across countries and years. Some cohesive devices are used effectively to connect ideas, but there are instances of faulty cohesion within and between sentences. Paragraphing is attempted but lacks consistent logic and structure.

How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, focus on improving the logical flow between sentences and paragraphs. Ensure that transitions between ideas are smoother, maintaining a clear connection throughout the essay. Work on more structured paragraphing to separate distinct ideas, making the essay easier to follow for the reader. Additionally, strive for clearer referencing and better use of cohesive devices to strengthen the overall coherence of the essay.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates an attempt to present information about the percentage of government spending on transportation and roads in four different countries from 1990 to 2005. There is a basic use of vocabulary and an attempt to convey the information, though the range and precision of vocabulary are limited. Some errors in word choice, spelling, and word formation are noticeable throughout the essay, causing some difficulty for the reader. The essay lacks complexity and sophistication in vocabulary usage, and there’s a repetition of basic vocabulary.

How to improve:

1. Vocabulary Range: Work on expanding the vocabulary range to express ideas more precisely. Use synonyms and varied vocabulary related to the topic of government spending, transportation, and statistics.
2. Accuracy and Precision: Pay attention to word choice and accuracy in conveying information. Review collocations and phrasing to present ideas more clearly and accurately.
3. Grammar and Spelling: Enhance accuracy in word formation, spelling, and grammar to improve overall readability and comprehension.

To achieve a higher band score:

• Utilize a wider range of vocabulary with more precise and varied word choices.
• Focus on accuracy in spelling, word formation, and sentence structure to enhance clarity and coherence.
• Aim for more complex sentence structures and a greater depth of analysis to elevate 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, covering a range of structures. There is an attempt at complex sentences, but the accuracy tends to be less consistent than in simple sentences. Grammar and punctuation errors are present, but they rarely impede communication. The essay contains minor errors such as missing articles, inconsistent verb tenses, and issues with word choice.

How to improve: To enhance the grammatical range and accuracy, focus on consistent verb tense usage throughout the essay. Pay attention to articles, ensuring they are appropriately used. Additionally, refine sentence structures to achieve greater clarity and precision. Proofread the essay carefully to catch and rectify minor errors that can improve overall accuracy and fluency.

Bài sửa mẫu

The provided bar chart delineates the distribution of government funds allocated to transportation and road infrastructure in four distinct countries over the years 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005.

Overall, the United States witnessed a notable upswing in the percentage of expenditure dedicated to transportation and pathways, in stark contrast to the remaining nations, which experienced a decline during this period. Notably, Portugal emerged as the leading contributor to the public expense percentage in 1990, whereas the United Kingdom registered the lowest fraction in 1995. Throughout the entire timeframe, Portugal consistently maintained the highest government spending in this sector.

In 1990, Italy allocated approximately 22% of its budget to road and transportation, slightly less than the 25% allotted by Portugal. Over the subsequent five years, both countries experienced a parallel decline, with a marginal gap of about 4% (20% for Italy and 24% for Portugal). By the culmination of the timeline, both Italy and Portugal converged to around 20%.

In the initial year, the United Kingdom’s government expenditure on roadways and transportation commenced at 10%, while the corresponding figure for the United States exceeded 10%. At the conclusion of the period, the UK witnessed a marginal reduction of approximately 3% in government expenditure percentage. In contrast, the United States was the sole nation to observe an escalation in this metric, reaching 15%.