The given pie charts compare the proportions of five different means of transportation that people used to commute to one university in two years.

The given pie charts compare the proportions of five different means of transportation that people used to commute to one university in two years.
It is evident that the figure for car usage showed a downward trend while the opposite was true for the rest of the categories. It is also obvious that the largest percentage belonged to car in 2004, and the same was true for bus in 2009.
As can be seen from the chart, in 2004, car was the most popular mean of transport, at 51%, while bus experienced the second greatest percentage, at 33%. Meanwhile, the figure for bicycle was 9%, which was considerably lower than those for car and bus. During the same period, train and walking only accounted for a marginal proportion, at 3% and 4% respectively.
On the other hand, in 2009, the figure for bus witnessed a sharp rose to 46%, making it the most common mode of transportation in 2009. Whereas car’s figure decreased by 23%, to 28%, the percentage of bicycle went up to 16%. Finally, both walking and train increased insignificantly by only 2% and 1% in the order given, remaining the least popular modes of transport.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"The given pie charts" -> "The provided pie charts"
Explanation: "Provided" is more formal and precise than "given" in academic writing, emphasizing the author’s role in presenting the data.
"used to commute" -> "used for commuting"
Explanation: "Used for commuting" is more concise and formal, aligning better with academic style by avoiding the less formal "to commute."
"the figure for car usage" -> "the proportion of car usage"
Explanation: "Proportion" is more precise and academically appropriate than "figure," which can be vague and less specific in this context.
"the largest percentage belonged to car" -> "the largest proportion was for cars"
Explanation: "Was for" is more grammatically correct and formal than "belonged to," which is less precise in this context.
"the same was true for bus" -> "the same was true for buses"
Explanation: Consistency in subject-verb agreement is crucial in formal writing; "buses" is the correct plural form to match "car."
"As can be seen from the chart," -> "It is evident from the data"
Explanation: "It is evident from the data" is a more formal and academically appropriate phrase than "As can be seen from the chart," which is somewhat informal and vague.
"the most popular mean of transport" -> "the most common mode of transportation"
Explanation: "Mode of transportation" is the correct term, and "common" is more precise than "popular" in this context, which can imply subjective opinion.
"During the same period," -> "In the same period"
Explanation: "In the same period" is more formal and commonly used in academic writing compared to "During the same period."
"the figure for bus witnessed a sharp rose" -> "the proportion of buses experienced a significant increase"
Explanation: "Experienced a significant increase" is more precise and formal than "witnessed a sharp rose," which is incorrect and informal.
"rose to 46%" -> "increased to 46%"
Explanation: "Increased" is the correct verb to use when describing a change in quantity or proportion, making it more appropriate for an academic context.
"car’s figure decreased by 23%" -> "the proportion of cars decreased by 23%"
Explanation: "The proportion of cars" is more specific and formal than "car’s figure," which is less precise and less formal.
"the percentage of bicycle went up to 16%" -> "the proportion of bicycles increased to 16%"
Explanation: "Increased" is more appropriate than "went up," and "proportion of bicycles" is more formal than "percentage of bicycle."
"both walking and train increased insignificantly" -> "both walking and rail travel increased insignificantly"
Explanation: "Rail travel" is a more specific term than "train," which is more appropriate in formal writing, and "increased insignificantly" is a more precise expression than "increased."

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 addresses the requirements of the task by providing an overview of the data presented in the pie charts. It presents information appropriately selected, highlighting the key features of the data, such as the decrease in car usage and the increase in bus usage. However, the essay does not fully extend the key features and some details are irrelevant or inaccurate. For example, the essay states that the figure for bus witnessed a "sharp rose" to 46% in 2009, but this is not a sharp increase considering the figure for bus in 2004 was 33%.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more specific and accurate details about the changes in transportation methods. For example, the essay could state that the percentage of people using cars to commute to the university decreased by 23% between 2004 and 2009, while the percentage of people using buses increased by 13%. The essay could also provide more detailed comparisons between the different modes of transportation, such as stating that the percentage of people using bicycles increased by 7% between 2004 and 2009, while the percentage of people using trains increased by only 1%.

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 from the introduction to the analysis of the pie charts. However, while cohesive devices are used effectively, there are instances where cohesion between sentences could be improved, leading to a somewhat mechanical flow. The paragraphing is present but not always logical, as the transition between the years could be more clearly delineated. The central topics within each paragraph are identifiable, but the connections between ideas could be enhanced for better clarity.
How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on improving the logical flow between sentences and paragraphs. This can be done by using a wider variety of cohesive devices and ensuring that transitions between different points are smooth and clear. Additionally, organizing the essay into more distinct paragraphs that clearly separate the analysis of each year would enhance coherence. Finally, reducing redundancy in phrasing and providing clearer references to the data in the pie charts would strengthen the overall cohesion of 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, using terms relevant to the context of transportation and statistical comparison. However, there are attempts to use less common vocabulary, such as "witnessed" and "marginal proportion," but inaccuracies in word choice and collocation are present, such as "sharp rose" instead of "sharp rise." Additionally, there are minor errors in spelling and word formation, such as "mean" instead of "means." These issues do not severely impede communication but do indicate a need for improvement in lexical precision 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. This includes ensuring correct collocations and avoiding awkward phrases. Expanding vocabulary knowledge, particularly with synonyms and less common terms, while practicing their correct usage in context will also help. Additionally, proofreading for spelling and word formation errors can further improve clarity and professionalism in writing.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay demonstrates a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, effectively conveying the information from the pie charts. However, there are some grammatical errors and awkward phrasing that occasionally hinder clarity. For instance, phrases like "the figure for bus witnessed a sharp rose" should be corrected to "the figure for bus witnessed a sharp rise." While the errors do not significantly impede communication, they are noticeable and detract from the overall quality of the writing.
How to improve: To enhance the grammatical range and accuracy, the writer should focus on the following areas:

Sentence Structure: Aim to use a wider variety of complex sentence structures to demonstrate greater grammatical flexibility.
Error Correction: Proofread the essay to identify and correct grammatical errors and awkward phrases, ensuring that all sentences are clear and accurate.
Punctuation: Pay attention to punctuation, as errors in this area can affect the readability of the text. Consider using more varied punctuation to enhance the flow of ideas.

Bài sửa mẫu

The given pie charts compare the proportions of five different means of transportation that people used to commute to one university in two years.

It is evident that the figure for car usage showed a downward trend, while the opposite was true for the other categories. Notably, the largest percentage belonged to cars in 2004, whereas buses held the largest share in 2009.

As can be seen from the charts, in 2004, cars were the most popular means of transport, accounting for 51%, while buses experienced the second greatest percentage at 33%. Meanwhile, the figure for bicycles was 9%, which was considerably lower than those for cars and buses. During the same period, trains and walking only accounted for marginal proportions, at 3% and 4% respectively.

On the other hand, in 2009, the figure for buses witnessed a sharp rise to 46%, making it the most common mode of transportation that year. In contrast, the percentage for cars decreased by 23% to 28%, while the percentage of bicycles increased to 16%. Finally, both walking and trains increased insignificantly by only 2% and 1% respectively, remaining the least popular modes of transport.