The charts below show the percentage of workers in three sectors across four countries in 1980 and 2010.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. You should write at least 150 words.

The charts below show the percentage of workers in three sectors across four countries in 1980 and 2010.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

You should write at least 150 words.

The bar charts depict the percentage of workers in three main sectors across four developed countries, namely Germany, America, Japan and China in 1980 and 2010. Overall, there was a sharp increase in the proportion of industrial workforce in all surveyed countries, while the contrary was true for services. Additionally, in both years, the majority of citizens in surveyed countries were attracted to industrial sector, except for China.
In 1980, 60% of residents in Germany chose to pursue industrial jobs, which increased significantlyto over 80% in three decades later, ranking the first among all aforementioned nations in terms of the number of industrial workers in the timescale. Likewise, the percentage of employees in industry also accounted the largest proportion compared to other fields in Japan and the United States, with 45% in 1980 before experiencing an impressing surge to 70% in Japan and 80% in USA 2010, which doubled its figure in the year 1980. Although industry attracted the majority of the workforce in all surveyed country, it was contradicted in China, where industry was the sector with the least percentage of workers with 40% in 1980 and remained stable to 2010.
On the other hand, agriculture was the sector that witnessed the least development in all four countries over the time scale. In 1980, China was the leading country in this field, with 70% of inhabitants working in agriculture, which decreased significantly to only 50% in 2010. While the figures for all remaining countries remained relatively stable, ranging from nearly 3% to 10%. Services were the profession that experienced a reduction in the percentage of workers in all surveyed countries; notably, in China, the number of employees in this sector was reduced by half.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"The bar charts depict" -> "The bar charts illustrate"
Explanation: "Illustrate" is a more precise and academically appropriate term than "depict" in this context, as it specifically refers to the presentation of data in a visual form.
"sharp increase" -> "significant increase"
Explanation: "Significant" is a more formal and precise term than "sharp," which can be seen as colloquial in academic writing.
"contrary was true for services" -> "the opposite was true for services"
Explanation: "The opposite" is a clearer and more formal way to express the contrast in academic writing compared to "the contrary."
"attracted to industrial sector" -> "drawn to the industrial sector"
Explanation: "Drawn to" is a more formal expression than "attracted to," which is slightly informal for academic writing.
"chose to pursue" -> "opted to pursue"
Explanation: "Opted" is a more formal synonym for "chose," enhancing the academic tone of the sentence.
"increased significantlyto" -> "increased significantly to"
Explanation: Corrects a grammatical error by adding the space before "to."
"impressing surge" -> "substantial surge"
Explanation: "Substantial" is a more formal and precise adjective than "impressing," which is somewhat vague and informal.
"USA 2010" -> "the United States in 2010"
Explanation: "The United States" is the formal name of the country, and using "in" instead of "2010" corrects the grammatical structure.
"contradicted in China" -> "contrasted with China"
Explanation: "Contrasted with" is a more accurate and formal way to describe the difference in trends between countries, rather than "contradicted," which implies a logical inconsistency.
"least development" -> "least developed"
Explanation: "Least developed" is grammatically correct and more formal than "least development."
"inhabitants working in agriculture" -> "residents engaged in agriculture"
Explanation: "Residents engaged in agriculture" is more specific and formal than "inhabitants working in agriculture," which is less precise.
"decreased significantly to only" -> "decreased significantly to just"
Explanation: "Just" is more formal and appropriate in academic writing than "only," which can sound informal.
"profession" -> "sector"
Explanation: "Sector" is the correct term for referring to an economic or industrial area, whereas "profession" is typically used for occupations or fields of work.
"number of employees in this sector was reduced by half" -> "number of employees in this sector decreased by half"
Explanation: "Decreased" is a more precise and formal term than "reduced" in this context, and it maintains the academic tone.

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

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay provides an overview of the main features of the data, including the overall trend of increasing industrial workers and decreasing service workers. It also highlights key features, such as the significant increase in industrial workers in Germany and the stable percentage of industrial workers in China. However, the essay does not fully extend the key features, and some details are irrelevant or inaccurate. For example, the essay states that the percentage of employees in industry in Japan and the United States doubled in 2010 compared to 1980, which is not accurate.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more specific and accurate details about the key features. For example, the essay could state that the percentage of industrial workers in Germany increased by 20% between 1980 and 2010, or that the percentage of service workers in China decreased by 20% over the same period. The essay could also be improved by providing a more balanced overview of the data, rather than focusing solely on the industrial sector. For example, the essay could mention that the percentage of agricultural workers in China decreased significantly, while the percentage of agricultural workers in other countries remained relatively stable.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay presents information and ideas in a coherent manner, with a clear overall progression. The main features of the charts are summarized, and comparisons are made where relevant. However, the use of cohesive devices is somewhat mechanical, and there are instances of awkward phrasing that disrupt the flow. The paragraphing is present but not always logical, as some ideas could be better grouped together for clarity. Overall, while the essay is understandable, it lacks the sophistication and fluidity required for a higher band score.
How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, the writer should focus on using a wider range of cohesive devices more effectively to connect ideas smoothly. Additionally, improving the logical organization of paragraphs by grouping related information together would strengthen the overall structure. Lastly, refining sentence structures to avoid awkward phrasing and ensuring clarity in referencing would contribute to a more polished 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 "proportion," "attracted," and "witnessed," but there are inaccuracies in word choice and some awkward phrases (e.g., "the contrary was true for services"). While the vocabulary used does not impede communication, there are noticeable errors in spelling and word formation, such as "significantlyto" (should be "significantly to") and "impressing surge" (should be "impressive surge"). These issues indicate that while the essay meets the basic requirements, it lacks the precision and control expected at higher band levels.

How to improve: To enhance the lexical resource score, the writer should focus on the following:

Expand Vocabulary: Incorporate a wider range of less common lexical items and phrases that are relevant to the topic, ensuring they are used accurately.
Improve Word Choice: Pay attention to collocations and ensure that word choices are precise and appropriate for the context.
Proofreading: Carefully proofread the essay to eliminate spelling and grammatical errors, as these can detract from the overall quality of the writing.
Use Varied Sentence Structures: Experiment with different sentence structures to convey ideas more fluently and flexibly, which can also enhance clarity and engagement.

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 Band 6. While there are some effective structures, the essay contains several grammatical errors and awkward phrasing that occasionally hinder communication. For instance, phrases like "significantlyto" and "impressing surge" exhibit issues with spacing and word choice. Additionally, there are instances of incorrect article usage and sentence fragments that detract from overall clarity. However, the errors do not completely obscure the meaning, allowing the reader to grasp the main points of the essay.
How to improve: To enhance the grammatical range and accuracy, the writer should focus on the following areas:

Proofreading: Carefully check for typographical errors and spacing issues to ensure clarity.
Variety in Sentence Structure: Incorporate a wider range of complex sentence structures to demonstrate flexibility and control over grammar.
Grammar and Punctuation: Pay attention to subject-verb agreement, article usage, and punctuation to reduce errors that may confuse the reader.
Practice: Engage in exercises that focus on complex sentence formation and grammatical accuracy to build confidence and proficiency.

Bài sửa mẫu

The bar charts depict the percentage of workers in three main sectors across four developed countries, namely Germany, America, Japan, and China, in 1980 and 2010. Overall, there was a sharp increase in the proportion of the industrial workforce in all surveyed countries, while the opposite trend was observed for the services sector. Additionally, in both years, the majority of citizens in the surveyed countries were attracted to the industrial sector, except for China.

In 1980, 60% of residents in Germany chose to pursue industrial jobs, which increased significantly to over 80% three decades later, ranking first among all aforementioned nations in terms of the number of industrial workers during this timescale. Likewise, the percentage of employees in industry also accounted for the largest proportion compared to other fields in Japan and the United States, with 45% in 1980 before experiencing an impressive surge to 70% in Japan and 80% in the USA by 2010, which doubled its figure from 1980. Although industry attracted the majority of the workforce in all surveyed countries, this was contradicted in China, where industry had the least percentage of workers at 40% in 1980 and remained stable through to 2010.

On the other hand, agriculture was the sector that witnessed the least development in all four countries over the timescale. In 1980, China was the leading country in this field, with 70% of inhabitants working in agriculture, which decreased significantly to only 50% in 2010. While the figures for all remaining countries remained relatively stable, ranging from nearly 3% to 10%. Services were the profession that experienced a reduction in the percentage of workers in all surveyed countries; notably, in China, the number of employees in this sector was reduced by half.