The given bar chart compares the number of people employed in five different types of work namely sales, accounting, computing, nursing, and farming in 2001 and 2008.

The given bar chart compares the number of people employed in five different types of work namely sales, accounting, computing, nursing, and farming in 2001 and 2008.
Overall, it is evident that the number of those working in sales was by far the highest, by contrast, farming attracted the least number of participants. Additionally, sales, computing and nursing were the three fields experienced an increase in the number of employees, whereas the number of people being employed in accounting and farming areas decreased in the shown period.
Looking first at the fields where there were more people participating, in 2001, sales attracted the most people working in with nearly 160 000 employees, which then increased slightly to 165 000 in 2008, still maintained its leading position in terms of the number of employees. Meanwhile, the numbers of people joining computing and nursing areas were nearly the same in 2001, with just under 60 000. In 2008, while computing field saw an increase in the quantity of joiners to reach nearly 80 000, the number of those working in nursing field still not passing 60 000 despite a minor increase.

Turning to the two other examined types of work, both accounting and farming saw a decline in terms of joiner numbers. In 2001, the number of accounting employees was slightly over 60 000, ranking second right after sales figures, which then decreased to under 60 000 in the subsequent 7 years. The decreasing trend was more clear in the number of people working in farming, which substantially fell from approximately 24 000 in 2001 to just under 20 000 in 2008, and in both surveyed years, the figures for farming were always lowest.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"the number of people employed in" -> "the number of individuals employed in"
Explanation: Using "individuals" instead of "people" adds a slight formality and precision to the academic tone, enhancing the professionalism of the language.
"namely" -> "specifically"
Explanation: "Specifically" is more formal and precise than "namely," which can sometimes sound too casual for academic writing.
"by far the highest" -> "significantly the highest"
Explanation: "Significantly" is more precise and formal than "by far," which can be seen as colloquial.
"by contrast" -> "in contrast"
Explanation: "In contrast" is a more formal phrase commonly used in academic writing to introduce a comparison.
"attracted the least number of participants" -> "attracted the smallest number of participants"
Explanation: "Smallest" is more precise and formal than "least," which can be vague in this context.
"the three fields experienced an increase" -> "these three fields experienced an increase"
Explanation: Using "these" instead of "the" clarifies that the fields are being discussed previously mentioned in the text.
"the number of people being employed" -> "the number of employees"
Explanation: "The number of employees" is more direct and formal, avoiding the passive construction "being employed."
"the shown period" -> "the depicted period"
Explanation: "Depicted" is more specific and formal than "shown," which is less precise in this context.
"in with nearly 160 000 employees" -> "with nearly 160,000 employees"
Explanation: Removing "in" corrects the grammatical error and improves readability by using a comma to separate thousands from the number.
"the numbers of people joining" -> "the number of individuals joining"
Explanation: Consistency in using "individuals" instead of "people" maintains a formal tone throughout the essay.
"the quantity of joiners" -> "the number of joiners"
Explanation: "Number" is more appropriate than "quantity" in this context, as it refers to countable items.
"still not passing" -> "still below"
Explanation: "Still below" is a more concise and formal way to express that the number has not surpassed a certain point.
"the two other examined types of work" -> "the remaining two types of work"
Explanation: "Remaining" is more precise and formal than "other," which can be vague in this context.
"the number of accounting employees was slightly over 60 000" -> "the number of accounting employees exceeded 60,000"
Explanation: "Exceeded" is a more formal and precise verb than "was slightly over," which is somewhat colloquial.
"the decreasing trend was more clear" -> "the decreasing trend was clearer"
Explanation: "Clearer" is the correct comparative form of "clear," improving grammatical accuracy and formality.

These changes enhance the formal and academic tone of the essay, ensuring that the vocabulary and phrasing align with the standards of academic writing.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7

Explanation: The essay covers all the requirements of the task and presents a clear overview of the main trends. The essay clearly presents and highlights key features/bullet points, but could be more fully extended. For example, the essay could provide more specific details about the changes in the number of employees in each field.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more specific details about the changes in the number of employees in each field. For example, the essay could state that the number of employees in sales increased by 5,000 between 2001 and 2008. The essay could also provide more specific information about the reasons for the changes in the number of employees in each field. For example, the essay could mention that the increase in the number of employees in computing may be due to the growth of the technology industry.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay presents information coherently and demonstrates a clear overall progression. The main ideas are organized logically, and there is a clear central topic within each paragraph. However, the use of cohesive devices is somewhat effective but shows signs of being mechanical, particularly in transitions between sentences. There are instances of unclear referencing, such as "the two other examined types of work," which could be more explicitly defined. Additionally, while paragraphing is present, it is not always logical or effectively utilized, leading to some confusion in the flow of information.

How to improve:

Enhance Cohesive Devices: Use a wider range of cohesive devices to improve the flow between sentences and paragraphs. Avoid mechanical usage and aim for more natural transitions.
Clarify References: Ensure that all references are clear and specific. Instead of vague terms like "the two other examined types of work," specify "accounting and farming" directly.
Improve Paragraph Structure: Organize paragraphs more logically by ensuring that each one has a clear focus and that ideas within paragraphs are well-connected. Consider starting each paragraph with a topic sentence that summarizes the main point.
Avoid Repetition: Reduce redundancy in phrasing and information to maintain reader engagement and clarity. For example, instead of repeatedly stating "in 2001" and "in 2008," consider summarizing these time frames more efficiently.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary suitable for the task, with attempts to use less common vocabulary. However, there are inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, such as "the fields experienced an increase" instead of "the fields that experienced an increase," and "the quantity of joiners" which is awkwardly phrased. Additionally, there are some errors in spelling and word formation, such as "the number of those working in nursing field" which should be "the number of those working in the nursing field." 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 using a wider range of vocabulary with greater precision and accuracy. This includes practicing the correct usage of collocations and ensuring grammatical structures are complete. Additionally, incorporating more sophisticated vocabulary and varying sentence structures can help convey meanings more fluently and flexibly. Regular reading and writing practice, along with feedback, can assist in identifying and correcting common errors in word choice and formation.

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 score. While there are some grammatical errors present, they do not significantly hinder communication. The writer shows an understanding of the task and presents information clearly, but there are noticeable issues with sentence structure and punctuation that affect the overall accuracy. For example, phrases like "the three fields experienced an increase" should be "the three fields that experienced an increase" for clarity, and "the number of those working in nursing field still not passing 60 000" should be revised to "the number of those working in the nursing field did not exceed 60,000."

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on the following areas:

Sentence Structure: Aim to use more complex structures accurately. Ensure that all clauses are correctly formed and that conjunctions are used appropriately.
Grammar and Punctuation: Pay attention to subject-verb agreement and the use of articles. Proofreading for punctuation errors will also enhance clarity.
Variety in Expression: Incorporate a wider range of vocabulary and sentence types to demonstrate flexibility and control over language. This can also help in reducing repetitive phrases.
Clarity and Cohesion: Ensure that all ideas are clearly connected and that transitions between sentences and paragraphs are smooth. This will improve the overall flow of the essay.

Bài sửa mẫu

The given bar chart compares the number of people employed in five different types of work, namely sales, accounting, computing, nursing, and farming, in 2001 and 2008. Overall, it is evident that the number of those working in sales was by far the highest; in contrast, farming attracted the least number of participants. Additionally, sales, computing, and nursing were the three fields that experienced an increase in the number of employees, whereas the number of people employed in accounting and farming decreased during the shown period.

Looking first at the fields with the highest participation, in 2001, sales attracted the most employees, with nearly 160,000 individuals, which then increased slightly to 165,000 in 2008, thus maintaining its leading position in terms of the number of employees. Meanwhile, the numbers of people joining the computing and nursing fields were nearly the same in 2001, with just under 60,000. In 2008, while the computing field saw an increase in the number of joiners to reach nearly 80,000, the number of those working in nursing still did not surpass 60,000 despite a minor increase.

Turning to the other two examined types of work, both accounting and farming saw a decline in terms of joiner numbers. In 2001, the number of accounting employees was slightly over 60,000, ranking second after sales figures, which then decreased to under 60,000 in the subsequent seven years. The decreasing trend was more pronounced in the number of people working in farming, which substantially fell from approximately 24,000 in 2001 to just under 20,000 in 2008, and in both surveyed years, the figures for farming were consistently the lowest.