The graph below shows the number of shops that closed and the number of new shops that opened in one country between 2011 and 2018. Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The line graph depicts the number of shops that closed and the new ones that opened in one country from 2011 to 2018
Overall, the number of shop openings was the highest in 2011, then it became the lowest in 2018. In addition, the figure for shop closures was statistical in contrast to the opening shops.
In terms, the figure for shop openings decreased sharply from 8500 to 4000 from 2011 to 2012, then it increased remarkably by 2000 in 2014. After that, the number of shops that were constructed dropped considerably from more than 6000 to 4000 in 2015. In 2017, the data remained the same, then it went down to 3000 by 1 year.
Regarding the number of shop closures, it dropped slowly from 6300 to 6000 between 2011 and 2012, then it jumped remarkably to more than 7000 in 2013. In 2014, the figure for shop closures was reduced by 600 lower than in 2013. After that, it decreased rapidly to less than 1000 in 2015, it increased sharply again in 2016 ( at more than 5000 ) but not much than in 2014, then it stayed the same at the end of the year ( 2018 ).

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

"statistical" -> "significant"
Explanation: "Statistical" typically pertains to data or analysis, whereas "significant" better conveys the importance or magnitude of the difference between the figures for shop closures and openings.
"In terms" -> "Regarding"
Explanation: "In terms" is less specific and formal compared to "Regarding," which is more appropriate for introducing a new aspect of the discussion.
"constructed" -> "opened"
Explanation: While "constructed" can be used to refer to building shops, "opened" is more commonly used and straightforward in this context.
"data remained the same" -> "figures remained consistent"
Explanation: Using "figures" instead of "data" adds clarity and precision, while "remained consistent" conveys the idea of stability more effectively than "remained the same."
"went down to 3000 by 1 year" -> "decreased to 3000 by the following year"
Explanation: "By 1 year" is ambiguous and less precise than "by the following year," which clearly indicates the timeframe.
"jumped remarkably to more than 7000" -> "rose significantly to over 7000"
Explanation: "Jumped remarkably" is less formal and lacks precision compared to "rose significantly," which accurately describes the increase in the number of shop closures.
"reduced by 600 lower" -> "decreased by 600 compared to"
Explanation: "Reduced by 600 lower" is redundant and awkward. "Decreased by 600 compared to" is clearer and more concise.
"not much than" -> "not much higher than"
Explanation: "Not much than" is grammatically incorrect. "Not much higher than" provides a clearer comparison between the figures for shop closures in 2016 and 2014.
"( at more than 5000 )" -> "(exceeding 5000)"
Explanation: "(at more than 5000)" is less formal and awkward. "(exceeding 5000)" is more concise and grammatically correct.
"( 2018 )" -> "(2018)"
Explanation: Removing the unnecessary parentheses makes the presentation cleaner and more professional.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay addresses the requirements of the task by summarizing the main features of the graph, including trends in shop openings and closures from 2011 to 2018. It presents an overview with information appropriately selected, such as the highest and lowest points of shop openings and closures. The key features, such as significant changes in shop openings and closures over the years, are adequately highlighted.

How to improve: To improve, the essay could provide more specific data points to support the trends mentioned, such as exact numbers for shop openings and closures in each year. Additionally, the essay could be more coherent by organizing the information into clearer paragraphs, making it easier for the reader to follow the progression of data. Avoiding repetition of phrases like "remarkably" and "sharply" would also enhance the clarity and precision of the writing.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation:
The essay arranges information in a somewhat coherent manner, providing a general overview of the trends observed in the graph. There is an attempt to organize the data chronologically, discussing the changes in the number of shop openings and closures over the years. Additionally, some cohesive devices are used to connect ideas and sentences, though there are instances of faulty cohesion and mechanical usage. Paragraphing is used, but its logic is not consistently maintained throughout the essay.

How to improve:

Clarity and Precision: Ensure clarity and precision in expressing information. For instance, instead of "the figure for shop openings decreased sharply from 8500 to 4000 from 2011 to 2012," it could be phrased as "the number of shop openings decreased from 8500 in 2011 to 4000 in 2012."
Cohesion: Work on improving the cohesion between sentences and ideas. Transition words and phrases can be used more effectively to create smoother connections between points.
Paragraphing: Maintain logical paragraphing consistently throughout the essay. Each paragraph should focus on a specific aspect or time period to enhance coherence.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a limited range of vocabulary, with some repetition ("shop," "closed," "opened"). While the essay attempts to convey the information, it lacks sophistication and variety in lexical choices. Some errors in word formation and spelling are noticeable, such as "constructred" instead of "constructed" and inconsistent use of punctuation (e.g., "1 year" should be "one year").

How to improve: To improve lexical resource, strive for a wider variety of vocabulary related to the topic, such as synonyms for "shop" and "closed/opened," and more precise word choices. Proofreading for spelling and grammatical errors would also enhance clarity and coherence. Additionally, paying attention to punctuation rules will contribute to better overall communication.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, showcasing a reasonable variety of sentence structures. While some errors in grammar and punctuation are evident, they do not significantly impede communication. The essay effectively summarizes the information from the graph and makes relevant comparisons between the years.

How to improve: To enhance the grammatical range and accuracy, consider refining sentence structures further by incorporating a wider range of complex sentences. Additionally, pay attention to grammatical errors and punctuation, aiming for greater accuracy to elevate the clarity and precision of the essay.

Bài sửa mẫu

The provided line graph illustrates the fluctuating numbers of shop closures and openings in a particular country spanning the years 2011 to 2018.

Overall, there was a notable disparity between the figures for shop openings and closures throughout the given period. The highest number of shop openings occurred in 2011, followed by a gradual decline, reaching its lowest point in 2018. Conversely, the data for shop closures exhibited a fluctuating pattern.

Beginning with shop openings, there was a substantial decrease from 8500 in 2011 to 4000 in 2012, followed by a remarkable increase of 2000 in 2014. However, there was a significant drop in 2015, with the number of new shops constructed plummeting from over 6000 to 4000. In 2017, the figures remained consistent before declining to 3000 in the subsequent year.

In terms of shop closures, there was a gradual decrease from 6300 in 2011 to 6000 in 2012, followed by a notable increase to over 7000 in 2013. This was succeeded by a reduction of 600 in 2014. Subsequently, there was a rapid decline to less than 1000 closures in 2015, followed by a sharp increase in 2016 to over 5000, though still lower than the peak in 2014. The closure rate then stabilized, maintaining similar levels through to 2018.

Overall, the data illustrates varying trends in shop openings and closures over the specified period, with 2011 marking the peak for new establishments and subsequent years showing fluctuations in both openings and closures.