The chart below shows numbers of incidents and injuries per 100 million passenger miles travelled (PMT) by transportation type in 2002.

The bar chart compares between the numbers of incidents and injuries per 100 million traveller mile trave of five means of transport in 2002. Overall, the number of incidents were considerable higher than that of injuries. In term of incidents and injuries, while demand response outnumberd all the remain vehicles, commuter rail stood at the bottom of the list.
To be more specific, demand response rank first in term of incidents and injuries, which more than 200 million of passengers had incidents as that rate for injuries were over 150 million t travelers. On the contraty, commuter rail only received a modest number of cases. approximately 10 time less travellers suffered from incidents and injuries than demand respond.
Light rail and bus were the two types of transport that had the equal number of incident by 76 million cases; however, the cases of injuries caused by bus were higher than light rail with more than 25 million cases. Heavy rail stood at the third rank in term of the cause of incidents and injuries with 51 million cases and 35 million cases, respectively.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"The bar chart compares between the numbers of incidents and injuries per 100 million traveller mile trave of five means of transport in 2002." -> "The bar chart compares the numbers of incidents and injuries per 100 million traveller miles for five modes of transport in 2002."
Explanation: Replacing "traveller mile trave" with "traveller miles" corrects the spelling error and grammatical structure, making it more precise and formal. Additionally, "modes of transport" is a more appropriate term than "means of transport" in this context, as it is more specific and commonly used in academic writing about transportation systems.
"the number of incidents were considerable higher than that of injuries" -> "the number of incidents was significantly higher than that of injuries"
Explanation: "Were" should be "was" for subject-verb agreement with "number." Also, "considerable higher" is awkward and vague; "significantly higher" is more precise and formal.
"In term of incidents and injuries" -> "In terms of incidents and injuries"
Explanation: "In term" is a typographical error; "terms" is the correct form.
"outnumberd" -> "outnumbered"
Explanation: Corrects the spelling error.
"all the remain vehicles" -> "all the remaining vehicles"
Explanation: "Remain" should be "remaining" to correctly form the comparative adjective.
"commuter rail stood at the bottom of the list" -> "commuter rail ranked lowest"
Explanation: "Ranked lowest" is a more concise and formal way to express the same idea.
"demand response rank first" -> "demand response ranked first"
Explanation: "Ranked" should be used as the past participle to agree with the past tense "ranked."
"that rate for injuries were over 150 million t travelers" -> "that rate for injuries was over 150 million travelers"
Explanation: Corrects "were" to "was" for subject-verb agreement, and "t travelers" to "travelers" for grammatical correctness.
"On the contraty" -> "On the contrary"
Explanation: Corrects the spelling of "contrary."
"approximately 10 time less travellers suffered" -> "approximately 10 times fewer travelers suffered"
Explanation: "Time" should be "times" for the correct form of the noun, and "less" should be "fewer" when referring to countable nouns like "travellers."
"had the equal number of incident" -> "had an equal number of incidents"
Explanation: "Incident" should be pluralized to "incidents" to match the context of multiple cases.
"the cases of injuries caused by bus were higher than light rail" -> "the number of injuries caused by buses was higher than those caused by light rail"
Explanation: "Cases of injuries" is vague; "number of injuries" is more specific. Also, "bus" should be pluralized to "buses" for consistency, and "light rail" should be treated as a singular noun.
"stood at the third rank in term of the cause of incidents and injuries" -> "ranked third in terms of the causes of incidents and injuries"
Explanation: "Stood at the third rank" is informal and awkward; "ranked third" is more direct and formal. Also, "in term of" should be "in terms of," and "cause" should be pluralized to "causes" for consistency.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6

Explanation: The essay provides an overview of the main trends in the chart, but the information is not always presented in a clear and concise way. For example, the essay states that "demand response outnumberd all the remain vehicles" but does not provide any specific data to support this claim. The essay also presents some irrelevant details, such as the number of passengers who had incidents and injuries.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more specific data to support the overview. The essay could also be made more concise by removing irrelevant details. For example, the essay could simply state that "demand response had the highest number of incidents and injuries" rather than providing the specific number of passengers.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay presents information with some organization, but there is a lack of overall progression. While it attempts to compare different modes of transport, the logical flow is disrupted by grammatical errors and awkward phrasing. The use of cohesive devices is inadequate and at times inaccurate, leading to confusion in the relationships between ideas. For example, phrases like "in term of incidents and injuries" and "approximately 10 time less travellers" are not clearly articulated. Additionally, paragraphing is not effectively utilized, as the structure does not clearly separate different ideas or topics.

How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, the writer should focus on improving the logical flow of ideas by using clear topic sentences for each paragraph. They should also work on using cohesive devices more effectively, ensuring that transitions between sentences and paragraphs are smooth and logical. Additionally, reducing grammatical errors and awkward phrasing will help clarify the relationships between ideas. Finally, organizing the essay into distinct paragraphs that each cover a specific aspect of the data will improve overall clarity and coherence.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a limited range of vocabulary that is minimally adequate for the task. While it attempts to convey the comparison of incidents and injuries across different modes of transport, there are noticeable errors in word choice and spelling (e.g., "trave" instead of "travel," "outnumberd" instead of "outnumbered," "in term" instead of "in terms"). These errors occasionally obscure meaning and may cause difficulty for the reader. The use of basic vocabulary and repetitive phrases further limits the effectiveness of the communication.

How to improve: To enhance the lexical resource score, the writer should aim to use a wider range of vocabulary, including less common lexical items, while ensuring accuracy in word choice and collocation. Additionally, improving spelling and grammatical structures would help reduce errors that impede communication. Practicing the use of synonyms and varying sentence structures can also contribute to a more sophisticated and precise expression of ideas.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a limited range of grammatical structures and attempts to use complex sentences, but these attempts are often inaccurate. There are several grammatical errors, such as "were considerable higher" (should be "were considerably higher"), "in term of" (should be "in terms of"), and "approximately 10 time less" (should be "approximately 10 times fewer"). These errors can cause some difficulty for the reader in understanding the intended meaning. While the essay does convey some relevant information, the frequent grammatical mistakes hinder effective communication.

How to improve: To improve the score, the writer should focus on the following areas:

Grammatical Accuracy: Review and correct grammatical errors, particularly with verb forms, subject-verb agreement, and pluralization.
Variety of Sentence Structures: Incorporate a wider range of sentence structures, including more complex sentences that are correctly formed.
Proofreading: Take time to proofread the essay for common errors and ensure clarity in expression.
Use of Transitional Phrases: Improve coherence by using transitional phrases to connect ideas more smoothly.

By addressing these areas, the writer can enhance their grammatical range and accuracy, potentially achieving a higher band score.

Bài sửa mẫu

The bar chart compares the numbers of incidents and injuries per 100 million passenger miles travelled (PMT) by five types of transport in 2002. Overall, the number of incidents was considerably higher than that of injuries. In terms of incidents and injuries, while demand response outnumbered all the remaining vehicles, commuter rail ranked at the bottom of the list.

To be more specific, demand response ranked first in terms of both incidents and injuries, with more than 200 million incidents reported, while the rate for injuries was over 150 million. In contrast, commuter rail recorded a modest number of cases, with approximately 10 times fewer incidents and injuries than demand response.

Light rail and bus were the two types of transport that had an equal number of incidents, at 76 million cases; however, the number of injuries caused by buses was higher than that of light rail, with more than 25 million cases. Heavy rail ranked third in terms of incidents and injuries, with 51 million incidents and 35 million injuries, respectively.