The charts compare the number of people per household in the UK in 1981 and 2001

The given chart illustrates the change in number of residents in each household in the UK between two different years: 1981 and 2001. Oerall, obviously thast house with two people remained the highest propotion in both two years while the percentage of six -people-homing still the most unsignificant type of household.
In 1981, the ratio of two less well-known type of household experienced a slight change. While the percentage of 5 and 4 people lived together in a house was roughly equal at 8% and 6%, respectively. By contrast, that figure of 5 people in 2001 was three times as 6 people at 6% and 2%.
Regarding single-living, this kind of living witnessed a considerable increase from 1981 to 2001, with 17% in 1981 to 26% in 2001. Instead of that, the type of house that had 3 and 4 people live together was decline minimally. Despite changes through 20 years, couple-living remained the most famous kind of housing and was grow slightly from 31% in 1981 to 34% in 2001.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"Oerall" -> "Overall"
Explanation: Correcting "Oerall" to "Overall" fixes a typographical error, ensuring the text adheres to standard English spelling and enhancing its professionalism.
"thast" -> "that"
Explanation: "Thast" is a typographical error and should be corrected to "that" to maintain the proper form of the word, enhancing readability and accuracy.
"propotion" -> "proportion"
Explanation: "Propotion" is a spelling error and should be corrected to "proportion" to ensure the correct spelling and maintain the academic tone.
"six -people-homing" -> "six-person households"
Explanation: "Six -people-homing" is awkward and incorrect. The phrase "six-person households" is clearer and more formally appropriate, improving the readability and precision of the sentence.
"the most unsignificant" -> "the least significant"
Explanation: "Unsignificant" is not a standard word. "Least significant" is the correct term, providing clarity and adhering to formal language standards.
"two less well-known type of household" -> "two less common types of household"
Explanation: "Type of household" should be pluralized to "types of household" to match the plural context, and "less well-known" is replaced with "less common" for a more precise and formal expression.
"two times as 6 people" -> "twice that of six people"
Explanation: "Two times as 6 people" is awkward and unclear. "Twice that of six people" is a more natural and precise way to express the comparison, enhancing the academic tone.
"single-living" -> "single-person households"
Explanation: "Single-living" is an unclear and informal term. "Single-person households" is a clearer and more formal way to describe households with only one occupant.
"Instead of that, the type of house that had 3 and 4 people live together was decline minimally." -> "In contrast, the type of household with three or four occupants showed a minimal decline."
Explanation: The original sentence is grammatically incorrect and awkward. The revised version corrects the grammar and clarifies the meaning, improving the formal tone and readability.
"couple-living" -> "two-person households"
Explanation: "Couple-living" is an informal and unclear term. "Two-person households" is more precise and appropriate for academic writing, clearly defining the household composition.
"was grow slightly" -> "grew slightly"
Explanation: "Was grow" is grammatically incorrect. "Grew" is the correct verb form needed to match the past tense context, ensuring grammatical accuracy and maintaining the formal tone.

These corrections and improvements enhance the clarity, precision, and formality of the text, aligning it with the standards expected in academic writing.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5

Explanation: The essay generally addresses the task, but the format is inappropriate in places. The essay does not provide a clear overview of the main trends in the data. The essay also presents some inaccurate information, such as the statement that the percentage of 5 people in 2001 was three times as 6 people.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing a clearer overview of the main trends in the data. The essay should also be more accurate in its presentation of the data. The essay could also be improved by using more appropriate language and grammar. For example, the essay uses the phrase "two less well-known type of household" which is not a clear or accurate way to describe the data. The essay also uses the phrase "couple-living" which is not a standard term for describing households. The essay could be improved by using more standard terms and phrases.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay presents information with some organization, but there are significant issues with overall progression and clarity. While it attempts to describe the changes in household composition, the lack of clear referencing and the repetitive use of phrases hinder the coherence. The paragraphing is present but not always logical, as some ideas are not clearly separated or developed. Additionally, the use of cohesive devices is inadequate and at times inaccurate, leading to confusion in understanding the relationships between ideas.

How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, the writer should focus on clearly organizing ideas into distinct paragraphs, each with a central topic. Improving the use of cohesive devices, such as linking words and phrases, will help clarify the relationships between different pieces of information. Furthermore, ensuring that all sentences contribute to the overall argument and avoiding repetition will strengthen the essay’s coherence. Lastly, proofreading for grammatical errors and awkward phrasing will improve clarity and readability.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a limited range of vocabulary that is minimally adequate for the task. While it attempts to describe the data presented in the charts, the use of vocabulary is basic and repetitive, with noticeable errors in word choice and spelling (e.g., "Oerall," "thast," "unsignificant"). These errors may cause some difficulty for the reader in understanding the intended meaning. Additionally, the essay lacks the use of less common lexical items and does not show sufficient flexibility or precision in conveying the information.

How to improve: To enhance the Lexical Resource score, the writer should aim to incorporate a wider range of vocabulary, including less common and more precise terms related to data description. Improving spelling accuracy and ensuring correct word forms will also help. Furthermore, varying sentence structures and using synonyms can reduce repetition and enhance the overall quality of the vocabulary used in the essay.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a limited range of grammatical structures, primarily using simple sentences with some attempts at complex forms. However, there are frequent grammatical errors, such as incorrect verb forms ("was grow" instead of "grew") and awkward phrasing ("the most unsignificant type of household"). These errors can cause some difficulty for the reader in understanding the intended meaning. While the essay attempts to convey information effectively, the inaccuracies in grammar and punctuation hinder overall clarity.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on expanding their range of grammatical structures by incorporating more complex sentences and ensuring that they are used accurately. Additionally, proofreading for common grammatical errors and improving sentence clarity would enhance the overall quality of the writing. Practicing with varied sentence structures and seeking feedback on written work can also contribute to better grammatical accuracy.

Bài sửa mẫu

The given chart illustrates the change in the number of residents per household in the UK between two different years: 1981 and 2001. Overall, it is evident that households with two residents remained the highest proportion in both years, while the percentage of six-person households was the least significant type of household.

In 1981, the ratio of two lesser-known types of households experienced a slight change. While the percentage of five and four people living together in a house was roughly equal at 8% and 6%, respectively, the figure for five people in 2001 was three times that of six people, at 6% and 2%.

Regarding single-person households, this type of living witnessed a considerable increase from 1981 to 2001, rising from 17% in 1981 to 26% in 2001. Conversely, the types of households with three and four people living together declined minimally. Despite changes over the 20 years, couple households remained the most common type of housing, growing slightly from 31% in 1981 to 34% in 2001.