the chart show the average time that four company spent to produce vehicles

The given line chart demonstrates the medium term spent by four car manufacturers to construct vehicles at their U.S factories during 8 years from 1998 to 2005.

During the research period, as can be seen from the graph, there was a decline in the average time of four factories. Noticeably, the figure for General Motor was the dramatic fall and Honda consistently led the group with the shortest construction times.

In 1998, the data about General Motor manufacturer was the highest in the graph and hit a record high 32 hours per conveyance. Meanwhile, the figure for Ford was slightly lower, at 28 hours. Likewise, the average time to produce a car by both Toyota and Honda were much lower and the same, at about 22 hours.

In 2005, General Motor significantly decreased to around 22 hours per vehicle and remained the highest figure in the chart. Additionally, Ford also tended to reduce from 28 hours to nearly 22 hours. At the same period, the figure for Toyota and Honda maintained the same level, reaching at 20 hours.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

"medium term" -> "time frame"
Explanation: "Time frame" is a more precise term to describe the duration covered by the chart, aligning better with the context of the essay.
"construct vehicles" -> "manufacture automobiles"
Explanation: "Manufacture automobiles" is a more formal and specific phrase that accurately describes the process carried out by car manufacturers.
"research period" -> "analyzed timeframe"
Explanation: "Analyzed timeframe" conveys a sense of examination or study of the duration mentioned, enhancing the clarity of the sentence.
"figure for General Motor was the dramatic fall" -> "General Motors experienced a significant decline"
Explanation: "General Motors experienced a significant decline" provides a clearer and more precise description of the change observed, using the correct name of the company.
"led the group with the shortest construction times" -> "was the frontrunner with the briefest manufacturing durations"
Explanation: "Frontrunner" and "manufacturing durations" are more sophisticated alternatives, elevating the formality and precision of the statement.
"the data about General Motor manufacturer" -> "the data pertaining to General Motors"
Explanation: "The data pertaining to General Motors" is a more formal and accurate phrase, specifying the subject more precisely.
"hit a record high" -> "reached a peak"
Explanation: "Reached a peak" maintains the same meaning while using a more formal expression, suitable for academic or professional writing.
"at about 22 hours" -> "approximately 22 hours"
Explanation: "Approximately 22 hours" is more precise and formal, providing a clearer indication of the time frame mentioned.
"General Motor significantly decreased" -> "General Motors experienced a significant decrease"
Explanation: This change maintains consistency with the correct company name and enhances clarity by using "experienced a significant decrease" instead of "significantly decreased."
"tended to reduce" -> "showed a tendency to decrease"
Explanation: "Showed a tendency to decrease" is more formal and precise, conveying the observed trend more accurately.
"reaching at 20 hours" -> "reaching approximately 20 hours"
Explanation: Adding "approximately" improves precision, ensuring the accuracy of the stated time frame.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

[
Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay adequately addresses the requirements of the task by presenting an overview of the data provided in the chart. It highlights key features such as the trends in average production time for each manufacturer over the given period. However, the details provided are somewhat limited, and there are some inaccuracies in reporting the data.
How to improve: To improve, provide more detailed and accurate descriptions of the data trends. Ensure that the information presented is relevant and directly supports the main points. Additionally, pay attention to grammar and language usage for clearer communication of ideas.
]

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

[
Band Score: 6

Explanation: The essay generally arranges information and ideas coherently, with a clear overall progression from the introduction to the conclusion. However, there are some issues with cohesion within and between sentences. The cohesive devices used are effective but can seem a bit mechanical or faulty at times. There is adequate paragraphing, but some sentences could be better structured to improve clarity and flow.

How to improve:

Improve Cohesion: Use a wider range of cohesive devices such as transition words and phrases, to create smoother connections between ideas. This will help reduce the sense of mechanical structure and increase the overall cohesion.
Refine Sentence Structure: Review and rewrite sentences that feel awkward or unclear to ensure each sentence flows logically from the previous one.
Paragraph Structure: Although the essay has paragraph breaks, consider refining the internal structure of the paragraphs to better organize related ideas. This can help create clearer thematic coherence and progression.
Enhance Referencing: To improve clarity, use referencing techniques (like pronouns or noun repetition) to ensure each sentence has a clear connection to the previous context.
Consistent Use of Cohesive Devices: Avoid overusing certain cohesive devices or relying too heavily on them. Diversifying the range of devices will contribute to a more natural and engaging flow throughout the essay.
]

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary for the task. The writer employs various terms related to the topic such as "line chart," "medium term," "construct vehicles," and names of car manufacturers. Additionally, there is an attempt to vary sentence structures and use descriptive language to convey information effectively. However, there are instances of repetition and lack of diversity in vocabulary, such as the repeated use of "average time" and "figure." Some inaccuracies in word choice and collocation are noticeable, such as "medium term spent" instead of "average time spent." While there are occasional errors in word choice and sentence structure, they do not significantly impede communication.

How to improve: To improve the lexical resource, the writer should aim to diversify vocabulary further and avoid repetition. Using synonyms and varied expressions for commonly used terms can enhance the richness of language. Additionally, paying closer attention to word choice and collocation can help reduce inaccuracies and improve clarity. Regular practice in reading and writing will also aid in expanding vocabulary and refining language skills.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: This essay falls into the Band 6 category for Grammatical Range and Accuracy. It uses a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, which is evident in phrases like "the given line chart demonstrates" and "during the research period, as can be seen from the graph." The essay communicates ideas clearly but does make some errors in grammar and punctuation. For instance, there are missing articles ("the medium term" should be "the median time") and some awkward phrasing ("the figure for General Motor was the dramatic fall"). These errors do not significantly impede understanding but are noticeable.

How to improve: To improve the score, focus on refining sentence structures for clarity and accuracy. Pay attention to articles, verb tenses, and sentence cohesion. For example, "the figure for General Motor was the dramatic fall" could be revised to "there was a dramatic fall in the figure for General Motors." Additionally, proofreading for punctuation and grammatical errors before submission can enhance the overall quality of the essay.

Bài sửa mẫu

The provided line chart illustrates the average time spent by four major car manufacturers in the United States on vehicle production over an eight-year period spanning from 1998 to 2005.

Throughout the observation period, there was a consistent downward trend in the average production time across all four factories. Particularly noteworthy was the significant decrease observed in General Motors’ production time, while Honda consistently maintained the shortest construction durations.

In 1998, General Motors recorded the highest production time, peaking at 32 hours per vehicle, whereas Ford followed closely behind at 28 hours. In contrast, both Toyota and Honda boasted significantly lower average production times, hovering around 22 hours.

By 2005, General Motors had substantially reduced its production time to approximately 22 hours per vehicle, although it remained the highest among the four manufacturers. Similarly, Ford also experienced a decrease from 28 to nearly 22 hours. Conversely, Toyota and Honda maintained their production times at 20 hours, illustrating a consistent efficiency in their manufacturing processes over the observed period.