The chart below shows the average time commuters spent travelling to work each day in four Australian cities between 2002 and 2010. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The chart below shows the average time commuters spent travelling to work each day in four Australian cities between 2002 and 2010.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The bar chart illustrates how much time people in Sydney,Perth,Brisbane and Adelaide dedicated to commuting to work from 2002 to 2010.

Overall,there were upward trends in the amount of time people in most cities spent commuting to work,save the case for Adelaide residents,which saw a fluctuation trend.Additionally,Sydney residents had a tendency to allocate more time to traveling to work than residents of the remaining cities throughout the period,whereas the opposite was true for Adelaide residents.

Looking first at Sydney and Brisbane,it took Sydney commuters 35 minutes per day to travel to work in 2002,after reaching the peak of nearly two-thirds of an hour in 2008,the figure for Sydney residents declined to about 37 minutes per day in the next year.In a similar vein,the figure for Brisbane started at just above 26 minutes per day in 2002,with a subsequent considerable rose to about 36 minutes each day in 2008 and a final drop to approximately 33 minutes each day in 2010.

Turning to the remaining countries,Perth recorded about 26 minutes per day was spent on traveling to work by its inhabitants in 2002,after which it remained unchanged at this level until 2008,followed by an increase to nearly 35 minutes each day at the end of the period.Meanwhile,the figure for Adelaide hovered around 25 minutes per day throughout the surveyed period,despite a growth to about 27 minutes each day in 2006.

---

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

1. "The bar chart illustrates how much time people in Sydney,Perth,Brisbane and Adelaide dedicated to commuting to work from 2002 to 2010." -> "The bar chart illustrates the time devoted by residents of Sydney, Perth, Brisbane, and Adelaide to commuting to work from 2002 to 2010."
   Explanation: The original phrase is somewhat informal and lacks precision. The revised version uses more formal language and clarifies that the data refers to residents rather than people, enhancing the academic tone.

2. "there were upward trends in the amount of time people in most cities spent commuting to work,save the case for Adelaide residents,which saw a fluctuation trend." -> "there were upward trends in the time spent commuting to work by residents in most cities, except for Adelaide, which exhibited a fluctuating trend."
   Explanation: "Save the case for" is an idiom that is too informal for academic writing. The revised phrase "except for Adelaide" is more direct and formal. Additionally, "fluctuation trend" is vague; "exhibited a fluctuating trend" is more precise.

3. "it took Sydney commuters 35 minutes per day to travel to work in 2002" -> "Sydney commuters spent approximately 35 minutes per day commuting to work in 2002"
   Explanation: "It took" is an informal and vague expression; "spent" is more precise and appropriate for describing time allocation. Also, "approximately" is added to acknowledge the potential margin of error in the data.

4. "the figure for Brisbane started at just above 26 minutes per day in 2002,with a subsequent considerable rose to about 36 minutes each day in 2008 and a final drop to approximately 33 minutes each day in 2010." -> "Brisbane’s commuting time began at approximately 26 minutes per day in 2002,increased significantly to around 36 minutes per day in 2008, and then decreased to approximately 33 minutes per day in 2010."
   Explanation: "Started at just above" and "subsequent considerable rose" are awkward and unclear. The revised version uses more precise language and avoids contractions, enhancing clarity and formality.

5. "Turning to the remaining countries,Perth recorded about 26 minutes per day was spent on traveling to work by its inhabitants in 2002" -> "Moving to the remaining cities,Perth recorded that its residents spent approximately 26 minutes per day commuting to work in 2002"
   Explanation: "Turning to the remaining countries" is informal and imprecise; "Moving to the remaining cities" is more specific and formal. Also, "was spent on traveling to work by its inhabitants" is awkward and verbose; "spent commuting to work by its residents" is more direct and appropriate.

6. "despite a growth to about 27 minutes each day in 2006" -> "despite a slight increase to approximately 27 minutes each day in 2006"
   Explanation: "Growth" is too vague and informal for this context; "slight increase" is more precise and academically appropriate.

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 general trends in commuting times for each city. It also makes some comparisons between the cities. However, the essay does not fully extend the key features and some details are irrelevant or inaccurate. For example, the essay states that Perth’s commuting time remained unchanged from 2004 to 2008, but the chart shows that it increased slightly in 2006.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more specific and accurate details about the trends in each city. For example, the essay could state that Sydney’s commuting time increased from 2002 to 2008, then decreased from 2008 to 2010. The essay could also provide more detailed comparisons between the cities, such as stating that Sydney’s commuting time was consistently higher than that of the other cities.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay arranges information and ideas coherently, presenting a clear overall progression. It effectively uses cohesive devices, but there are instances of mechanical cohesion and occasional awkward phrasing. While the essay maintains a logical structure, the paragraphing could be improved for better clarity, as some transitions between ideas are not as smooth as they could be. The central topics within paragraphs are generally clear, but some sentences lack clarity and precision in referencing, which affects the overall flow.
How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, the writer should focus on refining the use of cohesive devices to ensure they do not feel mechanical. Improving the clarity of referencing (e.g., using pronouns effectively) and ensuring that each paragraph has a distinct central topic will also help. Additionally, varying sentence structures and improving transitions between ideas will contribute to a more fluid reading experience. Finally, ensuring that paragraphing is logical and clearly delineated will aid in the overall organization of the essay.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary relevant to the task, allowing for clear communication of the main features of the chart. However, there are noticeable inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, such as "dedicated to commuting" instead of "spent commuting," and "considerable rose" instead of "considerable rise." Additionally, there are errors in spelling and punctuation, such as missing spaces after commas and inconsistent use of "each day" versus "per day." These issues do not severely impede communication but do detract from the overall effectiveness of the lexical resource.

How to improve: To enhance the lexical resource score, the writer should focus on expanding their vocabulary range and ensuring precise word choice. This includes practicing the use of synonyms and less common lexical items while being mindful of their collocations. Additionally, proofreading the essay for spelling and punctuation errors would improve clarity and professionalism. Engaging with varied reading materials can also help in acquiring a more sophisticated vocabulary and understanding of contextually appropriate language use.

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. While there are some effective structures, the essay contains several grammatical errors and punctuation issues that occasionally hinder clarity. For example, phrases like "save the case for Adelaide residents" and "the figure for Adelaide hovered around 25 minutes per day throughout the surveyed period" could be clearer. Additionally, the use of commas is inconsistent, which affects the overall readability of the text.

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

1. Sentence Structure: Incorporate a wider variety of complex sentences while ensuring they are grammatically correct. This could involve using more subordinate clauses effectively.
2. Punctuation: Pay closer attention to punctuation, particularly the use of commas to separate clauses and improve clarity.
3. Error Checking: Review the essay for minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasing that could be revised for better flow and accuracy.
4. Practice: Regularly practice writing essays and seek feedback to identify common errors and areas for improvement.

Bài sửa mẫu

The bar chart illustrates how much time people in Sydney, Perth, Brisbane, and Adelaide dedicated to commuting to work from 2002 to 2010.

Overall, there were upward trends in the amount of time people in most cities spent commuting to work, except for Adelaide residents, who experienced a fluctuating trend. Additionally, Sydney residents tended to allocate more time to traveling to work than residents of the other cities throughout the period, whereas the opposite was true for Adelaide residents.

Looking first at Sydney and Brisbane, it took Sydney commuters 35 minutes per day to travel to work in 2002. After reaching a peak of nearly two-thirds of an hour in 2008, the figure for Sydney residents declined to about 37 minutes per day in the following year. In a similar vein, the figure for Brisbane started at just above 26 minutes per day in 2002, with a subsequent considerable rise to about 36 minutes each day in 2008, followed by a final drop to approximately 33 minutes each day in 2010.

Turning to the remaining cities, Perth recorded about 26 minutes per day spent on traveling to work by its inhabitants in 2002, after which it remained unchanged at this level until 2008, followed by an increase to nearly 35 minutes each day by the end of the period. Meanwhile, the figure for Adelaide hovered around 25 minutes per day throughout the surveyed period, despite a growth to about 27 minutes each day in 2006.