fbpx

The graph below shows how the European Union spent its budget in 2001. Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The graph below shows how the European Union spent its budget in 2001. Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The pie graph shows how the EU expenditure in 2001 for five specific sectors being listed, namely Agriculture, Regional aid, Foreign aid, Administration, and Research, while the last category “Other” refers to unspecified spending. Overall, the EU spent most of its budget on Agriculture and Regional aid, while the amount of money spend on both Administration and Research accounted for relatively little in comparison. The figure for spending on Agriculture and Regional aid sectors made up three quarters of all EU spending in 2001. The percentage of expenditure for Agriculture was the highest at 42%. The proportion for Regional aid spending ranked second with 31%, which was about 10% lower than the spending on Agriculture. Meanwhile, the remaining sectors made up only one quarter of all EU spending in 2001. Spending on Foreign aid was 9% that year, which was only one third of that Regional aid. The figure for expenditure for Administration was 7%, while that of Research was 6%. Finally, the EU spent the least money on other unspecified sectors at only 5%


Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

  1. "expenditure" -> "allocation"
    Explanation: Replacing "expenditure" with "allocation" provides a more formal and precise term for describing the distribution of funds, enhancing the overall professionalism of the essay.

  2. "being listed" -> "listed"
    Explanation: Removing "being" before "listed" streamlines the sentence, making it more concise and improving the flow of the description.

  3. "money spend" -> "funds spent"
    Explanation: Substituting "money spend" with "funds spent" results in a more sophisticated expression, using "funds" instead of "money" for a more formal tone.

  4. "figure for spending" -> "proportion of expenditure"
    Explanation: Changing "figure for spending" to "proportion of expenditure" adds clarity and precision, specifying that the discussion is about the share of the budget allocated to each sector.

  5. "made up" -> "constituted"
    Explanation: Replacing "made up" with "constituted" elevates the language, offering a more formal and precise term to convey the idea that Agriculture and Regional aid formed a significant part of the budget.

  6. "ranked second" -> "occupied the second position"
    Explanation: Substituting "ranked second" with "occupied the second position" introduces a more formal and elaborate expression, contributing to a more polished writing style.

  7. "about 10%" -> "approximately 10%"
    Explanation: Adding "approximately" before "10%" enhances the precision of the statement, acknowledging a degree of estimation and maintaining a more scholarly tone.

  8. "remaining sectors" -> "the rest of the sectors"
    Explanation: Replacing "remaining" with "the rest of" results in a more descriptive and formal phrase, providing a clearer reference to the sectors not previously mentioned.

  9. "that year" -> "in that particular year"
    Explanation: Expanding "that year" to "in that particular year" adds specificity and formality to the expression, contributing to a more nuanced and refined language use.

  10. "figure for expenditure" -> "percentage of spending"
    Explanation: Changing "figure for expenditure" to "percentage of spending" maintains precision and clarifies that the discussion revolves around the proportions or percentages allocated to different sectors.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation:
The essay adequately covers the requirements of the task by presenting a clear overview of the main spending trends within the EU in 2001. It effectively highlights key features such as the major sectors of expenditure and their respective proportions in the budget. The essay provides a structured summary of the information depicted in the graph.

How to improve:
To enhance the score to a higher band, consider expanding on the description of the key features. Provide more detailed comparisons between the sectors, such as discussing the significance or impact of these expenditure differences. Additionally, ensure a more varied sentence structure and precise vocabulary to further enrich the content and presentation.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates a logical organization of information with a clear progression throughout. The introduction provides a concise overview of the graph, outlining the sectors to be discussed. Each paragraph focuses on a specific sector, presenting a clear central topic within each. The essay effectively uses cohesive devices, such as linking words and phrases, to connect ideas and create a smooth flow of information. The comparison between sectors is well-executed, contributing to the overall coherence. Additionally, the essay manages paragraphing sufficiently and appropriately.

How to improve:
To enhance cohesion further, consider using a wider range of cohesive devices. While the essay employs linking words, incorporating a variety of cohesive elements, such as pronouns and parallel structures, can add richness to the text. Additionally, ensure that referencing and substitution are consistently clear and appropriate. For instance, using pronouns or synonyms for repetitive terms can contribute to a more sophisticated and cohesive expression. Overall, maintaining this level of organization while diversifying cohesive elements will contribute to an even stronger response.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a sufficient range of vocabulary with some flexibility and precision. It effectively uses less common lexical items, such as "expenditure," "unspecified," and "sectors," contributing to a relatively varied vocabulary. The writer shows awareness of style and collocation, utilizing terms like "accounted for," "made up," and "ranked second." While there are occasional errors in word choice, like "money spend" instead of "money spent" and "figure for expenditure" instead of "expenditure figure," these do not significantly impede communication. The overall lexical resource is appropriate for the task, allowing for a clear and coherent presentation of information.

How to improve: To enhance the lexical resource further, focus on refining word choice and accuracy in expression. Pay attention to minor errors in word formation, such as subject-verb agreement ("money spend" to "money spent"). Additionally, strive for a more varied use of vocabulary by incorporating synonyms and avoiding repetition of phrases like "made up." Proofread the essay to catch and rectify these occasional errors, ensuring a more polished and accurate presentation.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, contributing to a moderate range of structures. There is a reasonable attempt to use varied vocabulary and sentence structures, such as the introduction of specific sectors and their corresponding percentages. However, there are several grammatical errors and instances of imprecise language that impact clarity. For example, the phrase "while the last category ‘Other’ refers to unspecified spending" could be improved for better clarity. Additionally, there is a lack of cohesion in the presentation of information, affecting the overall organization of ideas.

How to improve:

  1. Enhance sentence structures by incorporating a greater variety of complex sentences to demonstrate a higher level of flexibility.
  2. Pay attention to precision in language use to avoid vague or imprecise expressions.
  3. Improve the overall organization of ideas to create a more coherent flow, perhaps by grouping related information together.

This essay has the potential for improvement in grammatical accuracy and range, along with more sophisticated language use and organization of ideas.

Bài sửa mẫu

The provided pie chart illustrates the allocation of the European Union’s budget across five distinct sectors in the year 2001, namely Agriculture, Regional aid, Foreign aid, Administration, and Research. Additionally, a category labeled "Other" encompasses unspecified expenditures.

In terms of overall expenditure, Agriculture and Regional aid emerged as the predominant areas, jointly constituting three-quarters of the EU’s budget for the specified year. Notably, Agriculture claimed the highest proportion at 42%, with Regional aid following closely at 31%, representing a marginal 10% difference.

Conversely, Administration and Research received comparatively lesser allocations, collectively accounting for a quarter of the total budget. Specifically, Foreign aid constituted 9% of the budget, a third of the Regional aid expenditure. Administration and Research recorded expenditures of 7% and 6%, respectively.

It is noteworthy that the EU dedicated the smallest share of its budget, a mere 5%, to unspecified sectors falling under the "Other" category.

In summary, the pie chart elucidates the significant budgetary emphasis on Agriculture and Regional aid, with the remaining sectors collectively forming a lesser portion of the EU’s financial allocations in the year 2001.

Bài viết liên quan

Phản hồi

Learner

  • 10 bài chấm/ ngày

  • Tốc độ trả bài chậm

  • Có thể không truy cập được ở giờ cao điểm

Plus

199K

119K/th

  • Không giới hạn bài chấm

  • Tốc độ trả bài nhanh hơn

  • Truy cập 24/7

  • Hoàn tiền 30 ngày

    Bạn được đảm bảo trong 30 ngày đầu tiên được phép hoàn tiền bất kỳ lúc nào với bất kỳ lý do nào.

Best for Teacher

Premium

249K

149K/th

  • Gói Plus

  • Hỗ trợ kĩ thuật

  • Xuất file Word/Google Docs kèm comments: Link Demo

    - Bài chấm sẽ dc xuất kèm comments gợi ý vocab
    - File Word có thể dc up lên Google Docs và các comments sẽ dc giữ nguyên
    - Các comments có thể dc chỉnh sửa theo ý muốn của gv
    - File Word cá nhân hóa & White label

  • Hoàn tiền 30 ngày

    Bạn được đảm bảo trong 30 ngày đầu tiên được phép hoàn tiền bất kỳ lúc nào với bất kỳ lý do nào.

VIP

499K

299K/th

Learner

  • 10 bài chấm/ ngày

  • Tốc độ trả bài chậm

  • Có thể không truy cập được ở giờ cao điểm

Plus

199K

159K/th

  • Không giới hạn bài chấm

  • Tốc độ trả bài nhanh hơn

  • Truy cập 24/7

  • Hoàn tiền 30 ngày

    Bạn được đảm bảo trong 30 ngày đầu tiên được phép hoàn tiền bất kỳ lúc nào với bất kỳ lý do nào.

Best for Teacher

Premium

249K

199K/th

  • Gói Plus

  • Hỗ trợ kĩ thuật

  • Xuất file Word/Google Docs kèm comments: Link Demo

    - Bài chấm sẽ dc xuất kèm comments gợi ý vocab
    - File Word có thể dc up lên Google Docs và các comments sẽ dc giữ nguyên
    - Các comments có thể dc chỉnh sửa theo ý muốn của gv
    - File Word cá nhân hóa & White label

  • Hoàn tiền 30 ngày

    Bạn được đảm bảo trong 30 ngày đầu tiên được phép hoàn tiền bất kỳ lúc nào với bất kỳ lý do nào.

VIP

499K

399K/th

Learner

  • 10 bài chấm/ ngày

  • Tốc độ trả bài chậm

  • Có thể không truy cập được ở giờ cao điểm

Plus

199K/th

  • Không giới hạn bài chấm

  • Tốc độ trả bài nhanh hơn

  • Truy cập 24/7

Best for Teacher

Premium

249K/th

  • Gói Plus

  • Hỗ trợ kĩ thuật

  • Xuất file Word/Google Docs kèm comments: Link Demo

    - Bài chấm sẽ dc xuất kèm comments gợi ý vocab
    - File Word có thể dc up lên Google Docs và các comments sẽ dc giữ nguyên
    - Các comments có thể dc chỉnh sửa theo ý muốn của gv
    - File Word cá nhân hóa & White label

VIP

499K/th

  • Everthing in Premium

  • Hand Writing Image Recognition

  • Better Accuracy with GPT-4

  • Early Access to New features

    - Speaking Feedback

  • Customization

    We help with minor customizations to get it working just right.

  • Support Development of New Features

    • Speaking Practice
    • Classroom Management (e.g., Google Class Room)
    • Reading Practice
    • Listening Practice