The chart below shows the aid from six developed countries to developing countriesfrom 2008-2010. Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the mainfeatures, and make comparisons where relevant.

The bar graph below illustrates the aid provided to developing countries by six high-income countries between 2008 and 2010.

Overall, it is clear that most countries displayed an upward trend in financial support to less developed countries while Japan, the Netherlands, and Sweden did the opposite. Moreover, the USA was recognized as the largest assistance donor, whereas Sweden and the Netherlands provided the smallest amounts of aid.

From 2008-2010, the US supported approximately 18 – 25 billion dollars each year to developing economies and became the leading supplier among six developed nations. In 2009 there were about 18 billion dollars and in 2010 it was more than roughly 7$ billion compared to the previous two years. Additionally, with an annual average of only about $9 billion, Sweden and the Netherlands were regarded as the two lowest donor nations with little fluctuation.

On the other hand, the UK, Germany and Japan had almost the same amount of funding. The years 2008 to 2010 saw a minor spending growth for aid from the UK and Germany. There was an increase of nearly $4 billion from $8 billion to $12 billion over 2 years in the UK. Furthermore, Germany, which showed a fluctuating trend, decreased by $2 billion in 2009 and boosted again in 2010 with $12 billion. Finally, Japan was the only country whose aid spending had remained at its initial level after a slight decline.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"the bar graph below" -> "the bar graph depicted below"
Explanation: "Depicted" is a more precise and formal term than "is," enhancing the academic tone of the introduction.
"aid provided" -> "financial assistance provided"
Explanation: "Financial assistance" is a more specific and formal term than "aid," which is somewhat vague and informal for academic writing.
"most countries displayed an upward trend" -> "the majority of countries exhibited an upward trend"
Explanation: "The majority of countries" is more precise than "most countries," and "exhibited" is a more formal synonym for "displayed."
"did the opposite" -> "exhibited a downward trend"
Explanation: "Exhibited a downward trend" is a more precise and formal way to describe a decrease in aid, avoiding the colloquial "did the opposite."
"recognized as the largest assistance donor" -> "designated as the primary financial contributor"
Explanation: "Designated as the primary financial contributor" is more formal and specific than "recognized as the largest assistance donor."
"provided the smallest amounts of aid" -> "provided the lowest levels of financial support"
Explanation: "Lowest levels of financial support" is more specific and formal than "smallest amounts of aid."
"supported approximately 18 – 25 billion dollars" -> "provided approximately $18-25 billion"
Explanation: Using dollar signs and hyphens for the range is more conventional and clear in financial contexts.
"more than roughly 7$ billion" -> "approximately $7 billion"
Explanation: "Approximately" is a more precise and formal term than "more than roughly," which is too informal for academic writing.
"with little fluctuation" -> "with minimal fluctuations"
Explanation: "Minimal fluctuations" is a more formal and precise term than "little fluctuation."
"the UK, Germany and Japan" -> "the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan"
Explanation: Using the full names of countries is more formal and appropriate for academic writing.
"minor spending growth" -> "modest increase in expenditures"
Explanation: "Modest increase in expenditures" is a more formal and precise phrase than "minor spending growth."
"boosted again" -> "increased again"
Explanation: "Increased again" is a more formal alternative to "boosted again," which is colloquial.
"had remained at its initial level" -> "remained at its initial level"
Explanation: Removing "had" simplifies the sentence structure, making it more direct and formal.

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

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6

Explanation: The essay provides an overview of the main features of the chart, including the overall trend, the highest and lowest donors, and the countries with similar levels of aid. However, the essay does not fully extend the key features, and some details are irrelevant or inaccurate. For example, the essay states that the US provided more than $7 billion in aid in 2010, but the chart shows that the US provided approximately $25 billion in aid in 2010.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more specific and accurate details about the key features of the chart. For example, the essay could state that the US provided approximately $25 billion in aid in 2010, which is a significant increase from the previous two years. The essay could also provide more specific information about the trends in aid spending for each country. For example, the essay could state that the UK’s aid spending increased by approximately $4 billion from 2008 to 2010, while Germany’s aid spending fluctuated over the three years.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay presents information in a coherent manner, with a clear overall progression from the introduction to the body paragraphs. However, while it uses cohesive devices effectively, there are instances where cohesion between sentences could be improved, leading to some mechanical flow. The paragraphing is present but not always logical, particularly in how the information is grouped and presented, which affects the clarity of the central topics within each paragraph.

How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, the writer could focus on ensuring that each paragraph has a clear and distinct central topic. Additionally, varying the use of cohesive devices and ensuring that they are used appropriately would help to create smoother transitions between ideas. More attention to logical paragraphing and grouping related information together would also improve the overall clarity and flow of the essay.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary appropriate for the task. It attempts to use less common vocabulary, such as "upward trend," "financial support," and "fluctuating trend," but there are instances of inaccuracy in word choice and some awkward phrasing, such as "more than roughly 7$ billion," which could be clearer. Additionally, there are minor errors in spelling and word formation, such as "7$ billion" instead of "$7 billion." While these errors do not severely impede communication, they do detract from the overall lexical quality of the essay.

How to improve: To enhance the lexical resource score, the writer should aim to use a wider range of vocabulary with greater precision. This includes avoiding awkward phrases and ensuring correct word forms and collocations. Incorporating more sophisticated and varied vocabulary can also help convey ideas more fluently and flexibly. Additionally, proofreading for spelling and formatting errors will improve clarity and professionalism in the writing.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, which is characteristic of a Band 6 performance. While the writer attempts to convey the information clearly, there are noticeable errors in grammar and punctuation that occasionally hinder communication. For instance, phrases like "more than roughly 7$ billion" and "the leading supplier among six developed nations" contain awkward constructions and punctuation issues. Additionally, the use of "the opposite" without a clear antecedent can lead to confusion. Overall, the essay shows a good attempt to summarize and compare the data, but the grammatical inaccuracies detract from its overall effectiveness.

How to improve: To enhance the grammatical range and accuracy, the writer should focus on the following areas:

Sentence Structure: Incorporate a wider variety of complex sentences while ensuring they are grammatically correct.
Punctuation: Pay closer attention to punctuation rules, especially with dollar amounts and conjunctions.
Clarity: Ensure that all comparisons and references are clear and unambiguous to avoid confusion for the reader.
Proofreading: Take time to review the essay for any grammatical errors or awkward phrasing before submission.

Bài sửa mẫu

The bar graph below illustrates the aid provided to developing countries by six high-income nations between 2008 and 2010.

Overall, it is evident that most countries exhibited an upward trend in financial support to less developed countries, while Japan, the Netherlands, and Sweden showed a decline in their contributions. Moreover, the USA emerged as the largest donor, whereas Sweden and the Netherlands provided the smallest amounts of aid.

From 2008 to 2010, the US allocated approximately $18 to $25 billion each year to developing economies, establishing itself as the leading supplier among the six developed nations. In 2009, the aid amounted to about $18 billion, and in 2010, it increased to over $25 billion compared to the previous two years. Additionally, with an annual average of only about $9 billion, Sweden and the Netherlands were regarded as the two lowest donor nations, with minimal fluctuations in their contributions.

In contrast, the UK, Germany, and Japan had nearly the same level of funding. From 2008 to 2010, there was a slight increase in aid from the UK and Germany. The UK saw an increase of nearly $4 billion, rising from $8 billion to $12 billion over the two years. Furthermore, Germany displayed a fluctuating trend, decreasing by $2 billion in 2009 but rebounding to $12 billion in 2010. Finally, Japan was the only country whose aid spending remained at its initial level after a slight decline.