The given charts give information about the number of students at university in the UK from 1991 to 2001, government spending and the types of family economic background they came from in 1991

The provided charts give statistics regarding the quantity of learners in higher education, the expenditure by the authorities for students in the United Kingdom over the course of 10 years, and the category of family economic background they originated from in 1991.
In general, it can be seen that pupils who came from families with middle-income backgrounds accounted for the highest proportion. Besides, the number of learners in tertiary education in the UK increased significantly over the period, whereas the budget allocated by the state for each student experienced a plunge.
The proportion of university students who were derived from intermediate-income families dominated at 62% in 1991, more than twice as high as that of high-income families with 30%. Meanwhile, the percentage of learners hailing from low-income families made up 8%.
Concentrating on the number of pupils pursuing tertiary education, commencing at 1 million students in 1991, this figure jumped enormously by a further two times, reaching a peak of more than 2 million students in 1991. Following this, there was a slight downward trend in the quantity of undergraduates to approximately 2 million learners at the end of the period. In contrast to this upward trend, the government budget allocated for each student slipped dramatically from more than 6500 pounds to the bottom of roughly 4800 pounds in 1996. Subsequently, this expense of the state remained unchanged at 4800 pounds for the remaining years.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"The provided charts" -> "The presented charts"
Explanation: "Presented" is more precise and formal than "provided," which is somewhat vague and less commonly used in academic contexts.
"quantity of learners" -> "number of students"
Explanation: "Number of students" is more specific and commonly used in academic contexts than "quantity of learners," which is less precise and slightly awkward.
"expenditure by the authorities" -> "government expenditure"
Explanation: "Government expenditure" is a more specific and formal term, enhancing clarity and aligning better with academic style.
"students in the United Kingdom over the course of 10 years" -> "students in the United Kingdom over a 10-year period"
Explanation: "Over a 10-year period" is more formal and precise, avoiding the redundancy of "over the course of."
"the category of family economic background" -> "family economic backgrounds"
Explanation: "Family economic backgrounds" is grammatically correct and more concise, avoiding the awkward phrasing of "the category of."
"pupils" -> "students"
Explanation: "Pupils" typically refers to students in primary or secondary education; "students" is the more appropriate term for higher education.
"experienced a plunge" -> "experienced a significant decline"
Explanation: "Experienced a significant decline" is more formal and precise than "experienced a plunge," which is somewhat colloquial.
"derived from" -> "originated from"
Explanation: "Originated from" is more formal and appropriate for academic writing, whereas "derived from" can be less precise in this context.
"jumped enormously" -> "increased significantly"
Explanation: "Increased significantly" is more formal and avoids the colloquial tone of "jumped enormously."
"a further two times" -> "by two times"
Explanation: "By two times" is grammatically correct and clearer than "a further two times," which is awkward and informal.
"slipped dramatically" -> "decreased significantly"
Explanation: "Decreased significantly" is more formal and avoids the colloquial "slipped," which can imply a sudden or unexpected change.
"the bottom of roughly 4800 pounds" -> "approximately 4800 pounds"
Explanation: "Approximately" is more formal and precise than "roughly," which is somewhat informal for academic writing.
"remained unchanged at 4800 pounds" -> "remained constant at 4800 pounds"
Explanation: "Remained constant" is more formal and precise than "remained unchanged," which is slightly less formal.

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

Explanation: The essay addresses all the requirements of the task and presents an overview of the information in the charts. The writer has selected information appropriately and presented key features, but some details are irrelevant or inaccurate. For example, the writer states that the number of students in tertiary education increased significantly over the period, but the chart shows that the number of students increased from 1 million in 1991 to 2 million in 2001, which is not a significant increase. The writer also states that the government budget allocated for each student slipped dramatically from more than 6500 pounds to the bottom of roughly 4800 pounds in 1996, but the chart shows that the budget decreased gradually from 6500 pounds in 1991 to 4800 pounds in 1996.

How to improve: The writer could improve their essay by focusing on the key features of the charts and providing more accurate information. They could also use more precise language to describe the trends in the data. For example, instead of saying that the number of students increased significantly, the writer could say that the number of students increased by 100% over the period.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay arranges information and ideas coherently, presenting a clear overall progression. It effectively discusses the charts, outlining the main trends and statistics. However, there are instances where the cohesion between sentences could be improved, as some transitions feel mechanical or forced. The use of cohesive devices is present but not always accurate, leading to occasional confusion in the flow of ideas. Additionally, while paragraphing is evident, it is not always logical, with some paragraphs lacking clear central topics.

How to improve: To enhance the coherence and cohesion of the essay, the writer should focus on using a wider range of cohesive devices more effectively, ensuring that transitions between ideas are smooth and logical. Improving the clarity of referencing and substitution would also help to avoid repetition and enhance the overall flow. Furthermore, ensuring that each paragraph has a clear central topic and logically follows from the previous one would strengthen the organization of the essay.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary suitable for the task. The use of terms like "expenditure," "proportion," and "tertiary education" indicates an attempt to employ less common vocabulary. However, there are inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, such as "derived from intermediate-income families" which could be more naturally expressed as "from middle-income families." Additionally, phrases like "the budget allocated by the state for each student experienced a plunge" could be improved for clarity and precision. There are also minor errors in spelling and word formation, such as "the quantity of learners" which could be better phrased as "the number of learners." These issues do not severely impede communication but do reflect a lack of sophistication and control.

How to improve: To enhance the lexical resource score, the writer should focus on using a wider range of vocabulary with greater precision and appropriateness. This includes practicing the use of less common lexical items and ensuring that collocations are accurate. Additionally, reducing errors in spelling and word formation will help improve clarity. Engaging with more complex sentence structures and varying vocabulary choices will also contribute to a more sophisticated lexical range.

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 performance. While there are some effective complex structures, the essay contains several grammatical errors and awkward phrasing that occasionally hinder clarity. For instance, phrases like "the quantity of learners" and "the budget allocated by the state for each student experienced a plunge" could be more naturally expressed. Additionally, there are instances of punctuation errors, such as missing commas that could enhance readability. Overall, while the communication is generally clear, the errors present indicate a need for improvement in grammatical accuracy and range.

How to improve: To enhance the score, the writer should focus on increasing the accuracy of complex sentence structures and reducing grammatical errors. This can be achieved by practicing more varied sentence constructions and ensuring that punctuation is used correctly. Additionally, proofreading the essay for clarity and coherence can help eliminate awkward phrases and improve overall readability. Engaging with a wider range of vocabulary and grammatical structures will also contribute to a higher band score in this criterion.

Bài sửa mẫu

The provided charts give statistics regarding the number of learners in higher education, government expenditure on students in the United Kingdom over a period of 10 years, and the types of family economic backgrounds they originated from in 1991.

In general, it can be seen that pupils from middle-income families accounted for the highest proportion. Additionally, the number of learners in tertiary education in the UK increased significantly over the period, whereas the budget allocated by the state for each student experienced a decline.

The proportion of university students from intermediate-income families dominated at 62% in 1991, which was more than twice as high as that of high-income families at 30%. Meanwhile, the percentage of learners from low-income families comprised 8%.

Focusing on the number of pupils pursuing tertiary education, starting at 1 million students in 1991, this figure surged dramatically to over 2 million students by 2001. Following this, there was a slight downward trend in the number of undergraduates, decreasing to approximately 2 million learners by the end of the period. In contrast to this upward trend, the government budget allocated for each student fell sharply from over £6,500 to around £4,800 in 1996. Subsequently, this expenditure remained unchanged at £4,800 for the remaining years.