The chart below gives information about how families in one country spent their weekly income in 1968 and in 2018. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The chart below gives information about how families in one country spent
their weekly income in 1968 and in 2018.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and
make comparisons where relevant.

The provided chart illustrates the way households's weekly income was spent in the year of 1968 and 2018 within one nation.
Overall, while the food category accounted for the highest proportion in 1968, the leisure category took the first place in 2018. Moreover, fuel and power's figures along with that of the personal goods were the lowest in both years.
It can be seen from the chart that food and leisure spendings witnessed contrasting trend between the two years. Contrary to the percentage of food declining from over one third to under one fifth, leisure's expenditure more than doubled itself and reached about 23 percents in 2018. Regarding housing and transport, both figures increased considerably, jumping from 10 percent to 20 percent and from 8 percent to 14 percent respectively.
Both personal goods and clothing and software cost experienced an approximately 10 percent decrease between 1968 and 2018. Meanwhile, the household goods's number remained the same at 8 percents. Last but not least, fuel and power's portions decreased from 6 percent in 1968 to 4 percent in 2018, making it one of the least costly category.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

1. "households’s" -> "households’"
   Explanation: "Households’s" is incorrect as it improperly forms the possessive form of "households." The correct possessive form of "households" is "households’." Apostrophes are used to indicate possession or belonging, and since "households" is already plural, the apostrophe comes after the ‘s’.

2. "spendings" -> "expenditure"
   Explanation: "Spendings" is a colloquial term and not as formal as "expenditure." "Expenditure" is a more sophisticated term commonly used in formal contexts, especially when discussing financial matters.

3. "Contrary to the percentage of food declining" -> "In contrast to the decline in the percentage of food"
   Explanation: The phrase "Contrary to the percentage of food declining" is awkward and lacks clarity. Restructuring the sentence to "In contrast to the decline in the percentage of food" provides a clearer and more grammatically correct expression of the intended meaning.

4. "more than doubled itself" -> "more than doubled"
   Explanation: "More than doubled itself" is redundant. "Doubled" already implies an increase by a factor of two, so adding "itself" is unnecessary.

5. "percents" -> "percentages"
   Explanation: "Percents" is not incorrect, but "percentages" is a more formal and precise term for referring to proportions or ratios expressed in percentages.

6. "both figures increased considerably" -> "both figures experienced significant increases"
   Explanation: While "increased considerably" is grammatically correct, "experienced significant increases" adds more precision and formality to the sentence.

7. "Last but not least" -> "Finally"
   Explanation: "Last but not least" is a common phrase, but "Finally" is a more formal and concise alternative for transitioning to the last point in a list or discussion.

8. "one of the least costly category" -> "one of the least expensive categories"
   Explanation: "Least costly category" is grammatically incorrect as it lacks agreement in number. "Category" should be plural to match the plural noun "categories." Additionally, "expensive" is a more precise term than "costly" when discussing the price or value of items.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

[
Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay adequately addresses the task by summarizing the main features and making relevant comparisons between 1968 and 2018. It presents an overview of how households spent their weekly income during both years, covering various categories. Key features such as the contrasting trends in food and leisure expenditures, as well as the changes in housing, transport, and other categories, are highlighted. However, some details are lacking, and certain points could be further developed for a more comprehensive analysis.
How to improve: Provide more specific data points and examples to support the comparisons made between 1968 and 2018. Ensure that all key features are fully extended and relevant to the task, avoiding any irrelevant or inaccurate information. Consider organizing the information more clearly for easier comprehension by the reader. Additionally, pay attention to sentence structure and clarity to enhance overall coherence and cohesion.
]

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7

Explanation: The essay logically organizes the information by presenting a clear overview of the main features of the data from 1968 and 2018. Each paragraph is focused on specific categories of expenditure, allowing for a clear progression of ideas. Cohesive devices are used effectively to connect sentences and ideas, contributing to the overall coherence of the essay. Additionally, the use of paragraphing is sufficient and appropriate, with each paragraph presenting a clear central topic.

How to improve: To further improve coherence and cohesion, the essay could benefit from more varied cohesive devices to enhance the flow of ideas. Additionally, ensuring consistent referencing and substitution throughout the essay would strengthen coherence. Further development of paragraphing could involve more explicit topic sentences to guide the reader through each paragraph’s main point.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a sufficient range of vocabulary, with varied lexical items used to convey the information effectively. There is an attempt to use less common vocabulary, and some awareness of style and collocation is evident. The writer effectively summarizes the main features and makes relevant comparisons between the two years. The vocabulary used is appropriate and allows for flexibility and precision in conveying meanings.

How to improve: To further enhance the lexical resource, the writer could incorporate more sophisticated and uncommon lexical items to elevate the vocabulary. Additionally, paying attention to word choice, particularly in terms of accuracy and precision, can help minimize occasional errors and further refine the lexical 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 structures. There is an attempt to use varied sentence forms, although some sentences could be more complex for better cohesion and fluency. The essay presents a clear overview of the data and makes comparisons between the two years effectively. However, there are several grammatical errors and awkward phrasings throughout the essay, which slightly impede communication.

How to improve: To enhance the grammatical range and accuracy, focus on incorporating a wider variety of sentence structures, including compound and complex sentences. Pay attention to subject-verb agreement, verb tense consistency, and word choice. Additionally, proofread carefully to correct grammatical errors and improve clarity.

Bài sửa mẫu

The provided chart delineates the expenditure patterns of households’ weekly income in a particular nation during the years 1968 and 2018.

Overall, while food expenditure dominated in 1968, leisure expenditure took precedence in 2018. Conversely, fuel and power, along with personal goods, remained consistently low in both years.

The data reveals a notable shift in spending between food and leisure. Food expenditure decreased from over one-third to under one-fifth, whereas leisure expenditure more than doubled, reaching approximately 23% in 2018. Housing and transport expenditures exhibited significant increases, rising from 10% to 20% and 8% to 14%, respectively.

Both personal goods and clothing/software costs experienced a decrease of around 10% between 1968 and 2018, while household goods remained stable at 8%. Fuel and power expenditures decreased from 6% in 1968 to 4% in 2018, marking it as one of the least costly categories.