fbpx

The chart below gives information on the percentage of British people giving money to charity by age range for the years 1990 and 2010.

The chart below gives information on the percentage of British people giving money to charity by age range for the years 1990 and 2010.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant.

The bar chart indicates the proportion of British people who spent their money on charity by different age groups from 1990 to 2010.

Overall, the figure of people who gave giving money to charity in the age group range from 35 to 50 was the most significant while the lowest percentagepercent of people charity was in the age group 18 to 25.

As can be seen from the illustration, in three periods of age range 18 tọ 25, 26 to 35 and 36 to 50 ,the percentage percent of people giving money to charity in the year 1990 was always higher than 2010 . In 1990,the figure of group 18 to 25 age thrice as many as it was in 2010, accounting accounted for approximately 20% in 1990. In the group of age range 26 and 35, the percentage percent of people who gavegive money to charity in 1990 made up a bit over 30% which was is lower around 5% than the percent in 2010. Moreover, in the group of age between 36 to 50, the proportion of charity people in 1990 reached a peak at roughly 45% meanwhile the figure in 2010 accounted for exactly 35%.

Conversely,in 1990 the proportion of group people over 51 age was lower than the figure in 2010. The percentage percent of people who spent their money on charity in 1990 comprised exactly 35% and higher than 5% in 2010. FInally, the figure of people older than 65 who charitable was from a bit over 30% to exactly 35%.

Vocabulary Improvements

Errors and Improvements:

  1. “figure of people” -> “number of individuals”
    Explanation: Replacing “figure of people” with “number of individuals” provides a more precise and formal expression, enhancing the clarity of the sentence.
  2. “gave giving” -> “donated”
    Explanation: Substituting “gave giving” with “donated” is a more sophisticated and concise term, contributing to a more polished writing style.
  3. “percentagepercent” -> “percentage”
    Explanation: Removing redundancy by changing “percentagepercent” to “percentage” results in a more accurate and concise term without repeating the same concept.
  4. “age group range” -> “age bracket”
    Explanation: Replacing “age group range” with “age bracket” maintains clarity while utilizing a more compact and formal terminology.
  5. “tọ” -> “to”
    Explanation: Correcting the typographical error “tọ” to “to” ensures grammatical accuracy in the sentence.
  6. “accounting accounted for” -> “constituting”
    Explanation: Substituting “accounting accounted for” with “constituting” adds a touch of formality and precision to the sentence.
  7. “age thrice as many as it was” -> “three times as many as”
    Explanation: Changing “age thrice as many as it was” to “three times as many as” improves the fluency and readability of the sentence.
  8. “made up a bit over” -> “constituted slightly more than”
    Explanation: Enhancing the expression from “made up a bit over” to “constituted slightly more than” contributes to a more sophisticated and precise description.
  9. “lower around 5%” -> “approximately 5% lower”
    Explanation: Rearranging “lower around 5%” to “approximately 5% lower” maintains accuracy while improving the flow and formality of the sentence.
  10. “charity people” -> “charitable individuals”
    Explanation: Substituting “charity people” with “charitable individuals” adds a formal touch to the language and avoids the use of colloquial terms.
  11. “figure of people” -> “number of individuals”
    Explanation: Repeating the correction from item 1 to address the consistent use of “figure of people” throughout the essay.
  12. “spent their money on charity” -> “donated to charitable causes”
    Explanation: Replacing “spent their money on charity” with “donated to charitable causes” offers a more precise and formal expression.
  13. “higher than 5% in 2010” -> “5% higher than in 2010”
    Explanation: Rearranging “higher than 5% in 2010” to “5% higher than in 2010” maintains clarity and enhances the sentence structure.
  14. “charitable was from” -> “engaged in charity ranged from”
    Explanation: Substituting “charitable was from” with “engaged in charity ranged from” improves the precision and formality of the expression.

 

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation:
The essay adequately addresses the task requirements by providing an overview of the main features and making relevant comparisons. The introduction sets the context, stating the purpose of the chart, and the conclusion summarizes the key findings. The body of the essay attempts to highlight key features such as age groups and their charitable contributions over the years.

However, there are notable issues with accuracy, clarity, and language usage. The expression “gave giving” is awkward and could be confusing. Additionally, there are inconsistencies in the use of tenses, making some statements unclear. For example, the phrase “the percentage percent of people giving money to charity in the year 1990 was always higher than 2010” could be more clearly expressed.

Moreover, the essay lacks precise data and fails to provide specific percentages, making the comparison less impactful. The description of age groups is somewhat repetitive, and the transitions between ideas are not consistently smooth. These factors contribute to an essay that, while meeting the basic criteria, could benefit from improvements in detail, clarity, and coherence.

How to improve:

  1. Clarity and Precision: Use clear and concise language. Avoid awkward constructions like “gave giving” and ensure the use of appropriate tenses for accurate expression.
  2. Data Specifics: Include specific percentages to support comparisons. Provide accurate and detailed information for each age group and year mentioned.
  3. Coherence: Improve the flow between ideas. Use transition words and phrases to create a smoother connection between sentences and paragraphs.
  4. Avoid Repetition: Minimize repetition, especially in the description of age groups. Focus on presenting unique information in each part of the essay.
  5. Proofreading: Review the essay for grammatical errors, ensuring proper punctuation and sentence structure. This will enhance overall clarity and readability.

 

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: This essay demonstrates some coherence and cohesion but has several issues that prevent it from reaching a higher band score.

In terms of coherence, the essay attempts to organize information logically by discussing different age groups and comparing percentages between 1990 and 2010. It does present some key features, such as the highest and lowest percentages and some comparisons.

However, there are issues with cohesion. The use of language and grammar is not consistently clear, which affects the overall flow of the essay. For example, there are numerous grammatical errors, such as “the figure of people who gave giving money” and “the percentage percent of people giving money.” These errors make it challenging to understand the intended meaning, which impacts cohesion.

The essay also lacks a clear overall progression, as the organization of information is somewhat haphazard. It could benefit from a more structured approach, such as discussing age groups in a logical order and providing a clearer introduction and conclusion.

In addition, there are inconsistencies in referencing and substitution. For example, the essay uses “percentage percent” repetitively, which is unnecessary and affects cohesion. Moreover, the use of “gave giving money” and “charitable” is not consistent, leading to confusion.

Lastly, while there are attempts at paragraphing, the logic of paragraph breaks is not always evident.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the essay should focus on the following improvements:

  1. Grammar and Language: Pay careful attention to grammar and language use to ensure clarity and accuracy. Avoid repetitive phrases and use appropriate verb tenses.
  2. Structure: Organize the essay with a clear introduction, body paragraphs discussing different age groups, and a conclusion summarizing the main findings.
  3. Cohesion: Use cohesive devices, such as pronouns and transitional words, consistently and appropriately. Ensure that sentences and ideas flow smoothly from one to another.
  4. Clarity: Eliminate unnecessary repetition and maintain a consistent tone and style throughout the essay.
  5. Paragraphing: Ensure that paragraphs are logically structured, with each paragraph focusing on a specific aspect of the data.

Overall, with improvements in language and organization, this essay has the potential to reach a higher band score in terms of coherence and cohesion.

 

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary for the task, using some less common vocabulary items. However, there are instances of inaccuracy in word choice and word formation, such as “the figure of people who gave giving money” and “the lowest percentagepercent.” The essay attempts to convey information about the chart but lacks precision and clarity in expression. There are noticeable errors in sentence structure and grammar, which impact the overall coherence of the essay.

How to improve:

  1. Focus on accurate word choice and phrasing to enhance clarity. For example, replace “the figure of people who gave giving money” with “the percentage of people contributing to charity.”
  2. Pay attention to sentence structure and grammar to ensure smoother communication. For instance, rephrase “Conversely, in 1990 the proportion of group people over 51 age was lower than the figure in 2010” to “In contrast, the percentage of people aged 51 and over contributing to charity was lower in 1990 than in 2010.”
  3. Proofread the essay to correct spelling and word formation errors. For instance, change “charitable” to “contributed to charity” to improve accuracy.

By addressing these areas, the essay can achieve a more coherent and accurate representation of the information presented in the chart.

 

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates a moderate level of grammatical range and accuracy. It uses a mix of sentence structures, including simple and complex sentences. There are instances of complex structures such as subordinate clauses and comparisons, which contribute positively to the range of grammatical structures used.

While there are some grammatical errors and awkward phrasings throughout the essay, these errors rarely reduce communication. The essay generally maintains coherence and clarity, allowing the reader to understand the information presented.

There are issues with subject-verb agreement, tense consistency, and word choice that affect accuracy. For instance, “the figure of people who gave giving money” should be “the figure of people who gave money,” and “percentage percent” is redundant.

How to improve:

  1. Pay attention to subject-verb agreement and tense consistency. For example, “the figure of people who gave giving money” should be “the figure of people who gave money” to maintain proper tense and agreement.
  2. Avoid redundant phrases like “percentage percent,” which can be simplified to just “percentage.”
  3. Carefully proofread the essay to identify and correct grammatical errors, awkward phrasings, and punctuation mistakes.
  4. Work on achieving greater clarity and precision in expressing ideas to enhance overall writing quality.

 

Bài sửa mẫu

Revised IELTS Task 1 Report:

The bar chart illustrates the percentage of charitable contributions made by individuals across various age groups in the United Kingdom for the years 1990 and 2010.

Introduction:

Overall, the most noteworthy trend observed was the prevalence of charitable giving among individuals aged 35 to 50, whereas the lowest participation was evident within the 18 to 25 age group.

Overview:

Examining the data in detail, it is evident that across the age brackets of 18 to 25, 26 to 35, and 36 to 50, the proportion of individuals contributing to charity was consistently higher in 1990 than in 2010. Notably, in 1990, the age group of 18 to 25 exhibited a threefold increase compared to 2010, constituting approximately 20% of the population. Within the 26 to 35 age category, the percentage of contributors in 1990 slightly exceeded 30%, presenting a marginal decrease of around 5% in 2010. Moreover, individuals aged 36 to 50 demonstrated the highest charitable engagement in 1990, reaching approximately 45%, while the corresponding figure in 2010 stood at exactly 35%.

Conversely, individuals over the age of 51 exhibited a reverse trend. In 1990, their contribution rate, at precisely 35%, was slightly lower than the 2010 figure, which exceeded 5%. Finally, the demographic of individuals aged 65 and above demonstrated an increase in charitable contributions, rising from just above 30% in 1990 to exactly 35% in 2010.

This analysis highlights the variations in charitable giving across different age groups over the two decades, emphasizing the shifts in societal trends and values.

 

Bài viết liên quan

Phản hồi

Learner

  • 10 bài chấm/ ngày

  • Tốc độ trả bài chậm

  • Có thể không truy cập được ở giờ cao điểm

Plus

199K

119K/th

  • Không giới hạn bài chấm

  • Tốc độ trả bài nhanh hơn

  • Truy cập 24/7

  • Hoàn tiền 30 ngày

    Bạn được đảm bảo trong 30 ngày đầu tiên được phép hoàn tiền bất kỳ lúc nào với bất kỳ lý do nào.

Best for Teacher

Premium

249K

149K/th

  • Gói Plus

  • Hỗ trợ kĩ thuật

  • Xuất file Word/Google Docs kèm comments: Link Demo

    - Bài chấm sẽ dc xuất kèm comments gợi ý vocab
    - File Word có thể dc up lên Google Docs và các comments sẽ dc giữ nguyên
    - Các comments có thể dc chỉnh sửa theo ý muốn của gv
    - File Word cá nhân hóa & White label

  • Hoàn tiền 30 ngày

    Bạn được đảm bảo trong 30 ngày đầu tiên được phép hoàn tiền bất kỳ lúc nào với bất kỳ lý do nào.

VIP

499K

299K/th

Learner

  • 10 bài chấm/ ngày

  • Tốc độ trả bài chậm

  • Có thể không truy cập được ở giờ cao điểm

Plus

199K

159K/th

  • Không giới hạn bài chấm

  • Tốc độ trả bài nhanh hơn

  • Truy cập 24/7

  • Hoàn tiền 30 ngày

    Bạn được đảm bảo trong 30 ngày đầu tiên được phép hoàn tiền bất kỳ lúc nào với bất kỳ lý do nào.

Best for Teacher

Premium

249K

199K/th

  • Gói Plus

  • Hỗ trợ kĩ thuật

  • Xuất file Word/Google Docs kèm comments: Link Demo

    - Bài chấm sẽ dc xuất kèm comments gợi ý vocab
    - File Word có thể dc up lên Google Docs và các comments sẽ dc giữ nguyên
    - Các comments có thể dc chỉnh sửa theo ý muốn của gv
    - File Word cá nhân hóa & White label

  • Hoàn tiền 30 ngày

    Bạn được đảm bảo trong 30 ngày đầu tiên được phép hoàn tiền bất kỳ lúc nào với bất kỳ lý do nào.

VIP

499K

399K/th

Learner

  • 10 bài chấm/ ngày

  • Tốc độ trả bài chậm

  • Có thể không truy cập được ở giờ cao điểm

Plus

199K/th

  • Không giới hạn bài chấm

  • Tốc độ trả bài nhanh hơn

  • Truy cập 24/7

Best for Teacher

Premium

249K/th

  • Gói Plus

  • Hỗ trợ kĩ thuật

  • Xuất file Word/Google Docs kèm comments: Link Demo

    - Bài chấm sẽ dc xuất kèm comments gợi ý vocab
    - File Word có thể dc up lên Google Docs và các comments sẽ dc giữ nguyên
    - Các comments có thể dc chỉnh sửa theo ý muốn của gv
    - File Word cá nhân hóa & White label

VIP

499K/th

  • Everthing in Premium

  • Hand Writing Image Recognition

  • Better Accuracy with GPT-4

  • Early Access to New features

    - Speaking Feedback

  • Customization

    We help with minor customizations to get it working just right.

  • Support Development of New Features

    • Speaking Practice
    • Classroom Management (e.g., Google Class Room)
    • Reading Practice
    • Listening Practice