The bar chart shows the percentage of government spending on roads and transportation in four nations from 1990 to 2005.

The bar chart depicts the proportion of government funding on roads and transportation in four nations between 1990 and 2005.

Overall, it is evident that all countries experienced a similar downward trend in the budgetary allocation for roads and transport during the studied period, with the most significant fall being observed in Portugal. Despite this, Portugal was the country with the greatest investment in this sector, while the UK showed the opposite.

Throughout the 15-year period, Portugal and Italy dedicated much higher portions of funds on roads and transport. While the former commenced with 25% in 1990, which was the highest figure recorded on the chart, the latter stood at 20% initially. Subsequently, the figure for Portugal steeply decreased to 20% after five years. After which, it registered a steady decline of about 5% every five years, ending at approximately 15% in 2005. Meanwhile, Italy displayed roughly similar patterns, which experienced a significant fall to 12% in 2000. The remaining years witnessed a minimal uptick, ending at around 14% by the end of the time frame.

Turning to the UK, it was the only nation in the survey which experienced a remarkable increase in the fund allocation for roads and transport between 1990 and 1995, rising from 10% to around 13%. However, it was transient, as the next five years recorded a plummet to around 4%, representing the most pronounced fall on the chart. Similar to Italy, the UK witnessed a minimal growth to 4% towards the end of the period, yet this increase was far negligible compared to the previous fall.

In terms of the USA, there were relatively little changes concerning the government spending on roads and transport. Specifically, its figure hovered between 10% and 12% throughout the given period, with a peak of 14% recorded in 2000.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"the bar chart depicts" -> "the bar chart illustrates"
Explanation: "Illustrates" is a more precise and academically appropriate term than "depicts" in this context, enhancing the formal tone of the sentence.
"proportion of government funding" -> "percentage of government expenditure"
Explanation: "Percentage of government expenditure" is a more specific and formal way to refer to the allocation of funds, aligning better with academic language.
"the budgetary allocation" -> "the budgetary expenditures"
Explanation: "Expenditures" is more specific and appropriate in this context, referring directly to the funds spent, whereas "allocation" might imply a distribution or assignment rather than actual spending.
"the most significant fall being observed" -> "the most notable decline observed"
Explanation: "Notable decline" is a more precise and formal term than "significant fall," which is somewhat colloquial.
"the country with the greatest investment" -> "the country with the largest investment"
Explanation: "Largest" is more specific and formal than "greatest," which can sound slightly informal in academic writing.
"dedicated much higher portions of funds" -> "allocated a significantly greater proportion of funds"
Explanation: "Allocated a significantly greater proportion of funds" is more precise and formal, improving the academic tone.
"steeply decreased" -> "markedly decreased"
Explanation: "Markedly" is a more formal adverb than "steeply," which is somewhat colloquial and less commonly used in formal writing.
"registered a steady decline of about 5% every five years" -> "experienced a consistent decline of approximately 5% every five years"
Explanation: "Experienced a consistent decline" is more formal and precise than "registered a steady decline," and "approximately" is preferred over "about" for academic writing.
"minimal uptick" -> "slight increase"
Explanation: "Slight increase" is a more formal and precise term than "minimal uptick," which is somewhat informal and colloquial.
"the only nation in the survey" -> "the sole nation surveyed"
Explanation: "The sole nation surveyed" is more formal and concise, fitting better in an academic context.
"a remarkable increase" -> "a significant increase"
Explanation: "Significant" is a more neutral and formal term than "remarkable," which can imply a subjective judgment.
"plummet to around 4%" -> "dropped to approximately 4%"
Explanation: "Dropped" is a more formal synonym for "plummet," and "approximately" is preferred over "around" for academic writing.
"relatively little changes" -> "minimal changes"
Explanation: "Minimal changes" is a more concise and formal way to express small variations in data.
"its figure hovered" -> "its percentage remained relatively stable"
Explanation: "Remained relatively stable" is a more precise and formal way to describe the consistency in data, compared to the more casual "hovered."

These changes enhance the formality, precision, and clarity of the text, aligning it more closely with academic writing standards.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation: The essay covers all the requirements of the task and presents a clear overview of the main trends in government spending on roads and transportation in the four countries. The essay clearly presents and highlights key features/bullet points, but could be more fully extended. For example, the essay could provide more specific details about the changes in government spending in each country, such as the exact percentage change in spending between each year.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more specific details about the changes in government spending in each country. For example, the essay could state the exact percentage change in spending between each year. The essay could also be improved by providing a more detailed analysis of the trends in government spending. For example, the essay could discuss the reasons for the changes in government spending in each country.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0
Explanation: The essay logically organizes information and ideas, demonstrating clear progression throughout the response. Each paragraph presents a central topic, and the essay effectively uses a range of cohesive devices. However, there are instances of slight overuse of certain cohesive devices, and while paragraphing is generally appropriate, some transitions between ideas could be smoother to enhance overall coherence.
How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer could work on varying the use of cohesive devices to avoid repetition and ensure smoother transitions between ideas. Additionally, enhancing the clarity of referencing and ensuring that each paragraph flows more seamlessly into the next would improve coherence.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0
Explanation: The essay demonstrates a sufficient range of vocabulary that allows for some flexibility and precision in conveying the information presented in the bar chart. It uses less common lexical items, such as "budgetary allocation," "dedicated," and "transient," showing an awareness of style and collocation. However, there are occasional errors in word choice and phrasing, such as "the most pronounced fall on the chart" which could be more precisely stated. Additionally, there are minor issues with word formation and spelling, such as "around 4%" being repeated in a way that could confuse the reader regarding the context. Overall, while the vocabulary is adequate and varied, it lacks the sophistication and precision required for a higher band score.

How to improve: To enhance the lexical resource score, the writer should focus on expanding their vocabulary further, particularly with more sophisticated and precise terms related to data analysis and trends. Additionally, reducing the frequency of repetitive phrases and ensuring clarity in word choice will improve the overall quality of the essay. Practicing the use of collocations and idiomatic expressions can also help in achieving a more natural flow in writing. Lastly, proofreading for minor errors in spelling and word formation can help eliminate any distractions for the reader.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0
Explanation: The essay demonstrates a variety of complex sentence structures and produces frequent error-free sentences. The writer shows good control of grammar and punctuation, although there are a few errors present. For instance, phrases like "which experienced a significant fall" could be more accurately phrased as "which saw a significant fall," and there are minor issues with article usage and prepositions. Overall, the grammatical range is adequate for a Band 7, as the majority of sentences are clear and convey the intended meaning effectively.
How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on reducing the frequency of grammatical errors and improving the accuracy of complex structures. This can be done by proofreading for common mistakes, varying sentence structures even further, and ensuring that all sentences are clear and precise. Additionally, practicing more complex grammatical forms and ensuring their correct usage will enhance the overall grammatical range and accuracy.

Bài sửa mẫu

The bar chart depicts the proportion of government funding for roads and transportation in four nations between 1990 and 2005.

Overall, it is evident that all countries experienced a similar downward trend in budgetary allocation for roads and transport during the studied period, with the most significant decline observed in Portugal. Despite this, Portugal was the country with the highest investment in this sector, while the UK showed the opposite trend.

Throughout the 15-year period, Portugal and Italy dedicated much higher portions of funds to roads and transport. The former commenced with 25% in 1990, which was the highest figure recorded on the chart, while the latter stood at 20% initially. Subsequently, the figure for Portugal steeply decreased to 20% after five years, followed by a steady decline of about 5% every five years, ending at approximately 15% in 2005. Meanwhile, Italy displayed a roughly similar pattern, experiencing a significant fall to 12% in 2000. The remaining years witnessed a minimal uptick, ending at around 14% by the end of the time frame.

Turning to the UK, it was the only nation in the survey that experienced a remarkable increase in fund allocation for roads and transport between 1990 and 1995, rising from 10% to around 13%. However, this increase was transient, as the next five years recorded a plummet to around 4%, representing the most pronounced fall on the chart. Similar to Italy, the UK witnessed minimal growth towards the end of the period, yet this increase was negligible compared to the previous decline.

In terms of the USA, there were relatively few changes concerning government spending on roads and transport. Specifically, its figure hovered between 10% and 12% throughout the given period, with a peak of 14% recorded in 2000.