The graph below shows information about the languages that 13-year-old students in one school chose to study. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The graph below shows information about the languages that 13-year-old students in one school chose to study.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The line graph illustrates the attitude towards language of pupils, who are 13 years old in a secondary school in England.
It is clear that French and Mandarin had a significant difference in the amount of students at the beginning. Over a period of 10 years, both of two choices had substantial changes, as the quatify gap progressively narrowed.
In 2000, French was the trend of language with around 150 students choose it. On the other hand, Mandarin was the reverse, which was selected by under 10 students, a negligible amount compared with French. A half decade later, Mandarin experienced a dramatic rise, the figure for the option of French fell briskly.
Between 2000 and 2005, while a plenty of schoolchild tend to select Mandarin raised gradually, reaching a peak of around 78 students, the demand of learning French declined steadily. Later 2005, the number of pupil learning English did not exceed the number of pupil learning French, and both of them had not more or less variation.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"The line graph illustrates" -> "The line graph depicts"
Explanation: "Depicts" is a more precise and formal term than "illustrates" in the context of presenting data visually, enhancing the academic tone of the introduction.
"pupils, who are 13 years old" -> "pupils aged 13"
Explanation: "Pupils aged 13" is a more concise and formal way to specify the age group, avoiding the redundancy of "who are."
"a significant difference" -> "a substantial disparity"
Explanation: "Disparity" is more specific and academically appropriate than "difference" when referring to differences in quantity or degree.
"both of two choices" -> "both languages"
Explanation: "Both languages" is clearer and more direct than "both of two choices," which is awkward and redundant.
"the quatify gap" -> "the quantitative gap"
Explanation: "Quantitative" is the correct term for referring to numerical differences, whereas "quatify" is a typographical error.
"around 150 students choose it" -> "approximately 150 students chose it"
Explanation: "Approximately" is more precise than "around" in academic writing, and "chose" should be used to indicate past action.
"the reverse" -> "the opposite"
Explanation: "The opposite" is a clearer and more formal term than "the reverse" in this context, indicating a direct contrast.
"under 10 students" -> "fewer than 10 students"
Explanation: "Fewer than" is more precise and formal than "under," which is vague and informal.
"a plenty of schoolchild" -> "many schoolchildren"
Explanation: "Many" is the correct quantifier for plural nouns like "schoolchildren," and "schoolchild" should be "schoolchildren" for grammatical correctness.
"tend to select" -> "tended to select"
Explanation: "Tended to select" is the correct past continuous form to describe ongoing trends over a period of time.
"a plenty of" -> "a significant number of"
Explanation: "A significant number of" is a more formal and precise phrase than "a plenty of," which is colloquial and imprecise.
"the demand of learning" -> "the demand to learn"
Explanation: "The demand to learn" is grammatically correct and more direct, avoiding the awkward construction "the demand of learning."
"the number of pupil learning" -> "the number of pupils learning"
Explanation: "Pupils" should be plural to match the context, and "learning" should be "learn" for grammatical correctness.
"not more or less variation" -> "little variation"
Explanation: "Little variation" is a more concise and formal way to express minimal change, avoiding the awkward and redundant "not more or less."

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 graph. The essay also recounts detail mechanically with no clear overview.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing a clear overview of the main trends in the graph. For example, the essay could state that the number of students choosing French declined steadily over the period, while the number of students choosing Mandarin increased. The essay could also be improved by providing more specific details about the trends in the graph. For example, the essay could state that the number of students choosing French declined from around 150 in 2000 to around 70 in 2010. The essay could also state that the number of students choosing Mandarin increased from under 10 in 2000 to around 80 in 2010.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0
Explanation: The essay presents information with some organization, but there is a lack of overall progression. While it attempts to describe trends in the graph, the connections between ideas are not always clear, leading to confusion. The use of cohesive devices is inadequate and at times inaccurate, which affects the clarity of the writing. Additionally, the paragraphing is not well-structured, making it difficult for the reader to follow the argument.
How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, the writer should focus on clearly organizing the information in a logical sequence. Using a wider range of cohesive devices correctly can help to connect ideas more effectively. Furthermore, ensuring that each paragraph has a clear central topic and logical progression will improve the overall structure of the essay. Lastly, proofreading for grammatical accuracy and clarity will also strengthen the writing.

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 convey the information from the graph, there are noticeable errors in word choice and spelling (e.g., "quatify," "a plenty of schoolchild," "pupil learning English did not exceed the number of pupil learning French"). These errors can cause some difficulty for the reader and detract from the overall clarity of the message. The use of basic vocabulary is repetitive, and there is a lack of more sophisticated lexical items that would enhance the essay’s quality.
How to improve: To improve the lexical resource score, the writer should aim to expand their vocabulary by incorporating a wider range of synonyms and less common lexical items. Additionally, focusing on correct word forms and ensuring accurate spelling will enhance clarity. Practicing the use of collocations and phrases that are more natural in context can also help convey precise meanings more effectively.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0
Explanation: The essay demonstrates a limited range of grammatical structures, primarily relying on simple sentences with some attempts at complex forms. While there are instances of error-free sentences, frequent grammatical errors and issues with punctuation are present, which can cause some difficulty for the reader. The use of vocabulary is somewhat repetitive, and there are inaccuracies in word choice that affect clarity. Overall, the grammatical errors detract from the overall communication of the ideas.
How to improve: To improve the score, the writer should focus on expanding their range of sentence structures by incorporating more complex sentences and ensuring accuracy in their grammatical forms. Practicing the use of varied vocabulary and ensuring correct punctuation will also enhance clarity. Additionally, proofreading for common errors and refining sentence construction can help reduce the frequency of mistakes. Engaging with model essays to understand effective grammatical usage can also be beneficial.

Bài sửa mẫu

The line graph illustrates the attitudes towards language study among 13-year-old pupils in a secondary school in England.

It is clear that French and Mandarin exhibited a significant difference in the number of students at the beginning. Over a period of 10 years, both language choices experienced substantial changes, as the quantitative gap progressively narrowed.

In 2000, French was the preferred language, with around 150 students choosing it. In contrast, Mandarin was selected by under 10 students, a negligible amount compared to French. A half-decade later, Mandarin experienced a dramatic rise, while the number of students selecting French fell sharply.

Between 2000 and 2005, the number of schoolchildren opting for Mandarin increased gradually, reaching a peak of around 78 students, while the demand for learning French declined steadily. After 2005, the number of pupils learning Mandarin exceeded that of pupils learning French, and both languages showed minimal variation thereafter.