The chart below shows the results of three surveys on absenteeism in a particular European country in the years 2000, 2005 and 2010. The results show the reasons people gave for not going to work.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The bar chart compares the outcomes of three projects on 5 reasons why people choose not to go to work in a country in Europe in the years 2000, 2005 and 2010.
Overall, it can be clearly seen that people who contracted an illness likely stayed at home the most in 2000 and the overall lowest figure was belonging to stress in 2005. In addition to this, the illness saw a significant decline as a root for not working contrasting to personal needs reasons over 10 years.
In 2000, nearly 45 people did not go to work because of ailments, such a figure was far more than other causes. While in the same year, just more than 5 individuals stayed at home due to stress and tension. 10 years later witnessed a sharp decrease in number of off-work officers to 35 people, whereas the figure for stress sharply increased by around 8 people.
The other reasons which are personal needs, family responsibilities and unanticipated issues stood at about 14, 26,13, respectively in the first year of the period. While both reasons related to personal demands and unexpected problems jumped in 2010, the number of individuals did not go to work attributed to family responsibilities declined to 25 people in 2005 and remained unchanged until 2010. And this figure became the most second popular roots in 2010 for distancing from works.
Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng
Errors and Improvements:
"5 reasons why people choose not to go to work" -> "Factors influencing individuals’ decision to abstain from work"
Explanation: Replacing "5 reasons why people choose not to go to work" with "Factors influencing individuals’ decision to abstain from work" adds formality and precision, providing a more sophisticated introduction to the topic.
"it can be clearly seen" -> "it is evident"
Explanation: Substituting "it can be clearly seen" with "it is evident" enhances the clarity and formality of the statement, contributing to a more refined academic tone.
"belonging to stress" -> "attributed to stress"
Explanation: Changing "belonging to stress" to "attributed to stress" improves accuracy and formality, ensuring a more precise expression of the relationship between the figure and the reason for not going to work.
"a sharp decrease in number of off-work officers" -> "a significant decline in the number of individuals absent from work"
Explanation: Replacing "a sharp decrease in the number of off-work officers" with "a significant decline in the number of individuals absent from work" maintains clarity while using a more appropriate and formal phrase.
"unanticipated issues stood at about 14, 26,13, respectively in the first year of the period" -> "unforeseen problems were approximately 14, 26, and 13, respectively, in the initial year of the period"
Explanation: Changing "unanticipated issues stood at about 14, 26,13, respectively in the first year of the period" to "unforeseen problems were approximately 14, 26, and 13, respectively, in the initial year of the period" improves the structure and formality of the sentence, providing a clearer presentation of the information.
"And this figure became the most second popular roots in 2010 for distancing from works." -> "This figure emerged as the second most prevalent cause for work absenteeism in 2010."
Explanation: Substituting "And this figure became the most second popular roots in 2010 for distancing from works." with "This figure emerged as the second most prevalent cause for work absenteeism in 2010." maintains clarity while using more precise and formal language.
Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6
Band Score: 6.0
The essay addresses the requirements of the task by summarizing the information presented in the bar chart on reasons for absenteeism in a European country in 2000, 2005, and 2010. The overview is generally clear, highlighting key features such as the prominence of illness in 2000 and the decrease in its prevalence over the decade, as well as the shifts in other reasons for absenteeism. The information is presented with some clarity, although there are instances of unclear phrasing and grammatical errors that slightly hinder comprehension.
How to improve:
Clarity of Expression: Enhance the clarity of your expressions to avoid confusion. For example, the sentence "In 2000, nearly 45 people did not go to work because of ailments, such a figure was far more than other causes" could be rephrased for better clarity, perhaps as "In 2000, almost 45 individuals were absent from work due to illnesses, a significantly higher number compared to other reasons."
Grammar and Syntax: Review and revise grammatical structures and syntax to ensure coherence. For instance, the phrase "And this figure became the most second popular roots in 2010 for distancing from works" could be revised to "This figure became the second most prevalent reason for absenteeism in 2010."
Consistency in Terminology: Maintain consistency in the terminology used. For instance, the essay uses both "personal needs" and "personal demands"; it would be better to stick to one term for consistency.
Detailed Comparison: While the essay provides a good overview, consider extending comparisons for a more comprehensive analysis. For instance, you mention a decline in family responsibilities from 2000 to 2005, but it would be beneficial to elaborate on the stability of this trend from 2005 to 2010.
Proofread: Ensure a thorough proofreading to eliminate minor errors and improve the overall professionalism of the writing.
Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6
Band Score: 6.0
The essay demonstrates a reasonable level of coherence and cohesion. Information is presented with a generally clear progression, and the use of cohesive devices is effective, but there are instances where cohesion within and between sentences could be improved. The introduction provides a clear overview of the chart, and each paragraph focuses on specific data points. However, some sentences lack clarity, and there are minor errors in referencing and substitution.
How to improve:
Cohesion within Sentences: Ensure that the connections between sentences are clearer. Some transitions between ideas are abrupt, impacting the overall flow of the essay.
Referencing and Substitution: Be cautious about the use of pronouns and other referencing devices. Clarify any ambiguous references to ensure that the reader easily understands the connections between ideas.
Logical Progression: While the overall progression is discernible, pay attention to the logical flow within paragraphs. Ensure that each paragraph presents information in a coherent manner, contributing to the overall understanding of the data.
Sentence Structure: Vary sentence structures for better coherence. Some sentences are quite straightforward, and introducing variety can enhance the overall readability of the essay.
By addressing these points, the essay can achieve a higher level of coherence and cohesion, potentially reaching a Band 7.0.
Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 7
Band Score: 7.0
The essay demonstrates a sufficient range of vocabulary, allowing for some flexibility and precision in conveying the information. The writer uses less common lexical items with some awareness of style and collocation. There is an attempt to convey a variety of reasons for absenteeism, and the essay generally communicates the main features of the chart. However, there are some inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, and occasional errors in spelling and word formation.
For example, the use of "outcomes of three projects" instead of "results of three surveys" and "root for not working" instead of "reason for not working" are instances where the vocabulary could be more accurate. Additionally, there are some minor errors in word formation and spelling, such as "unanticipated issues" instead of "unforeseen issues."
How to improve:
To improve the Lexical Resource score, the writer should aim for more accurate and precise vocabulary. It’s crucial to pay attention to word choice and ensure that the selected terms fit the context accurately. Proofreading for spelling and word formation errors is recommended to enhance overall lexical control. Additionally, the writer could benefit from incorporating a wider range of vocabulary to convey ideas more fluently and precisely.
Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 7
Band Score: 7.0
The essay demonstrates a good command of grammar and a variety of complex structures. It effectively communicates the information presented in the chart, with a clear introduction and conclusion. Complex sentences are used to convey relationships between data points, contributing to overall coherence. The essay generally avoids major grammatical errors, and the sentences are well-constructed, enhancing the reader’s understanding of the information.
However, there are some instances where the expression could be refined for better clarity. For example, in the second paragraph, the phrase "root for not working" could be more precisely articulated. Additionally, there is room for improvement in the use of articles, such as in "the overall lowest figure was belonging to stress in 2005," where the article usage could be revised for smoother expression.
How to improve:
- Refine expressions for clarity: Review and revise sentences for more precise articulation, avoiding ambiguous phrases.
- Improve article usage: Pay attention to the appropriate use of articles to enhance the overall fluency of the essay.
- Proofread for minor errors: Although the essay is generally well-written, a careful proofread can help catch and correct any minor errors or awkward phrasing.
Overall, the essay meets the Band 7 criteria by using a variety of complex structures, producing frequent error-free sentences, and demonstrating good control of grammar and punctuation.
Bài sửa mẫu
The provided bar chart illustrates the findings from three surveys conducted in a specific European country in the years 2000, 2005, and 2010, focusing on the reasons individuals cited for their absenteeism from work. The data is categorized into five main factors, namely illness, stress, personal needs, family responsibilities, and unanticipated issues.
Overall, it is evident that illness was the primary cause of absenteeism in 2000, while stress reached its lowest point in 2005. Notably, the prevalence of illness as a reason for not attending work experienced a substantial decrease over the 10-year period, contrasting with an increase in absenteeism due to personal needs.
In 2000, the highest proportion of absenteeism, approximately 45 individuals, was attributed to illness, surpassing other factors significantly. Conversely, stress accounted for just over 5 cases. A decade later, the number of individuals not attending work due to illness notably decreased to 35, marking a considerable decline. Concurrently, the instances of absenteeism due to stress rose by around 8 individuals.
Regarding personal needs, family responsibilities, and unanticipated issues, these factors stood at approximately 14, 26, and 13 cases, respectively, in the initial year of the surveyed period. In 2005, there was an observable increase in absenteeism related to personal needs and unanticipated issues, with the numbers reaching their peak in 2010. However, family responsibilities experienced a decline, reaching 25 cases in 2005 and remaining unchanged until 2010. Notably, family responsibilities became the second most prevalent reason for absenteeism in 2010.
In conclusion, the survey data reveals a shift in the patterns of absenteeism over the examined decade, with illness decreasing in prominence and personal needs, particularly family responsibilities, gaining significance as contributing factors to individuals not attending work.