The graph below shows the average time spent by four car manufacturers to produce vehicles at their US factories from 1998 to 2005

The line chart illustrates how much time factories of four brands spend to finish a car from 1998 to 2005 in the US.

Overall, there was a decline in time spent on producing a vehicle in General Motor, while three companies Ford, Toyota and Honda had a fluctuation change through the period. In addition, the Honda car manufacturing took less time than the others.

Initially, the number of hours for making a car process in Honda started at 22 in 1998, followed by a mild decrease to 20 in 1999. Then it reached a peak at 24 in 2002 and gradually fell to 20 at the end of the period. Conversely, from 1998 to 2002 the figure for General Motor witnessed a sharp drop from 32 to upward of 24. After this period of time, the hours spent on General Motor making had the same trend with Honda and dropped to 24 in 2005.

About 28 hours was spent on making a Ford car, with an increase to peak at around 32 in 2001 and dramatic decline to downward of 24. Similarly, the figure for Toyota increased from 22 to 24 over the first 5 years period and experienced a slight fall to 20 in the end.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

"spend to finish a car" -> "allocate to complete car production"
Explanation: "Spend" typically refers to money or time, but "allocate" is more appropriate when referring to time or resources dedicated to a task. "Complete car production" is a more formal and accurate way to describe the process than simply "finish a car."
"while three companies Ford, Toyota and Honda" -> "whereas Ford, Toyota, and Honda, three companies,"
Explanation: "While" implies contrast, but in this context, "whereas" is more suitable. Additionally, placing the noun "companies" before the list clarifies the sentence structure.
"In addition, the Honda car manufacturing" -> "Moreover, Honda’s car manufacturing"
Explanation: "In addition" is less precise than "Moreover" for introducing an additional point. Possessive form "Honda’s" clarifies that it is specifically Honda’s car manufacturing being discussed.
"Initially, the number of hours for making a car process" -> "Initially, the duration of the car manufacturing process"
Explanation: "Number of hours for making a car process" is awkward and redundant. "Duration of the car manufacturing process" is a more concise and clear description.
"from 1998 to 2002 the figure for General Motor" -> "from 1998 to 2002, General Motors’ figure"
Explanation: "General Motor" should be "General Motors" for correct company name usage. Additionally, specifying "General Motors’ figure" provides clarity regarding what is being discussed.
"the hours spent on General Motor making had the same trend" -> "the time allocated to General Motors’ manufacturing followed a similar trend"
Explanation: "Spent on General Motor making" is awkward and lacks clarity. "Time allocated to General Motors’ manufacturing" is more precise. "Had the same trend" is replaced with "followed a similar trend" for variety and clarity.
"About 28 hours was spent on making a Ford car" -> "Approximately 28 hours were dedicated to manufacturing a Ford car"
Explanation: Subject-verb agreement corrected from "was" to "were." "Spent on making a Ford car" is replaced with "dedicated to manufacturing a Ford car" for clarity and formality.
"with an increase to peak at around 32" -> "peaking at around 32"
Explanation: Simplifying the phrase for clarity and conciseness.
"dramatic decline to downward of 24" -> "a dramatic decline to below 24"
Explanation: "Downward of 24" is awkward; "below 24" is clearer. Additionally, "dramatic decline" is more descriptive than "decline."
"Similarly, the figure for Toyota increased from 22 to 24 over the first 5 years period" -> "Likewise, Toyota’s figure rose from 22 to 24 over the initial 5-year period"
Explanation: "Similarly" is replaced with "Likewise" for variety. "The first 5 years period" is clarified to "the initial 5-year period."

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

[
Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay adequately addresses the requirements of the task by describing the trends in the time spent by four car manufacturers to produce vehicles from 1998 to 2005. It provides an overview of the data, mentioning the decline in time spent by General Motors, fluctuation in Ford, Toyota, and Honda, and noting that Honda took less time compared to the others. Key features and trends are highlighted, such as the initial increase and subsequent decrease in production time for Honda, the sharp drop and subsequent stabilization for General Motors, the fluctuation for Ford, and the steady increase followed by a slight decline for Toyota.
How to improve: To improve, the essay could provide more specific data points from the graph, avoiding generalizations like "mild decrease" or "dramatic decline" and focusing on precise figures. Additionally, the essay could better organize the information by separating each manufacturer’s trend into distinct paragraphs for clarity. Furthermore, it could enhance coherence by using transitions to smoothly connect different parts of the analysis. This would elevate the essay’s effectiveness in fully highlighting and extending key features.
]

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates a logical organization of information and ideas, with clear progression throughout. Each paragraph focuses on a specific aspect of the data, such as individual company trends or overall trends, contributing to coherence and cohesion. The use of cohesive devices, such as transition words and phrases (e.g., "initially," "conversely," "similarly"), helps to connect ideas within and between sentences, enhancing the flow of the essay. The central topic of each paragraph is well-defined, facilitating clarity and coherence.

How to improve:
To further enhance coherence and cohesion, consider varying the sentence structures and incorporating a wider range of cohesive devices. Additionally, ensure that paragraphing is consistently logical throughout the essay, with each paragraph containing a clear central topic and contributing to the overall coherence of the response. Pay attention to grammatical accuracy and clarity to minimize any potential distractions for the reader.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary, utilizing terms such as "illustrates," "fluctuation," "manufacturing," "witnessed," and "experienced," which are suitable for the task. There is an attempt to use less common vocabulary, as seen in phrases like "mild decrease," "sharp drop," and "dramatic decline." However, there are some inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, such as "fluctuation change" (redundant) and "making had the same trend" (awkward phrasing). Additionally, while there are occasional errors in spelling and word formation ("General Motor" should be "General Motors"), they do not significantly impede communication.

How to improve:
To enhance the lexical resource, aim for more precise and varied vocabulary choices. Avoid redundant phrases and ensure proper collocation of words. Proofreading for errors in spelling and word formation, as well as ensuring accuracy in brand names, will further improve clarity and coherence. Additionally, strive for smoother transitions between ideas to enhance the overall coherence of the essay.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay demonstrates a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, incorporating various structures such as compound sentences and transitions ("while", "conversely", "similarly"). However, there are noticeable grammatical errors and awkward phrasings that slightly impede communication. For instance, "a decline in time spent on producing a vehicle in General Motor" should be "a decline in the time spent producing vehicles at General Motors." Additionally, there are instances of awkward word choices ("making a car process" instead of "car manufacturing process") and imprecise language ("the hours spent on General Motor making had the same trend with Honda").
How to improve: To enhance grammatical range and accuracy, focus on refining sentence structures and ensuring precise and clear expression. Proofreading for grammatical errors and refining language choices can also improve clarity and coherence. Additionally, strive for consistency in terminology and avoid awkward phrasings to enhance overall fluency.

Bài sửa mẫu

The line chart depicts the average time required by factories of four different car manufacturers to complete the production process of vehicles in the United States between 1998 and 2005.

Overall, there was a downward trend in the time spent on producing vehicles by General Motors, while Ford, Toyota, and Honda experienced fluctuations throughout the period. Notably, Honda’s manufacturing process consistently required less time compared to the other three manufacturers.

Initially, Honda’s production process began with 22 hours in 1998, followed by a slight decrease to 20 hours in 1999. Subsequently, there was a peak at 24 hours in 2002, followed by a gradual decline to 20 hours by the end of the period. In contrast, General Motors saw a significant decrease in production time from 32 hours in 1998 to just over 24 hours by 2002. Following this period, General Motors experienced a similar trend to Honda, with production time dropping to 24 hours by 2005.

The production time for Ford vehicles started at approximately 28 hours, peaking at around 32 hours in 2001, before experiencing a sharp decline to just under 24 hours. Similarly, Toyota’s production time increased from 22 hours to 24 hours over the initial five-year period, before slightly decreasing to 20 hours by the end of the observation period.