The graph below shows the percentage of Australian exports to 4 countries form 1990-2012

The line graph illustrates the proportion of Japan ,US ,China and India imports from Australia over a period of 22 years from 1990 to 2012
Overall, it is clear that there was an increase in the proportion of imports in China and India with China witnessing the most dramatic rise but the opposite was true for the figures for Japan. In addition, the quantity of imports by China was the largest over the period shown.
In 1990, imports by Japan were the most common 1990 with over 25%, compared to only 3% importing from China. Over the following years, there was a significant decrease of roughly 9% in the number of imports by Japan. By contrast, the figures for imports by China experienced a dramatic rise throughout the period, ending up at nearly 28% at the end of the period.
Looking at the other attractions, the percentage of imports by the USA was over 10% which was dramatically higher than the figure for India, at only 1%. The number of imports by India stayed unchanged at 1% over the following 10 years and increased to reach a peak of 7% in 2010, followed by a final drop to 5% in 2012. Meanwhile, despite some moderate fluctuations around 5 to 11% during the first 20 years, the figure for imports by the USA then climbed slightly to 7% in the final year.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"The line graph illustrates the proportion of Japan,US,China and India imports from Australia over a period of 22 years from 1990 to 2012" -> "The line graph depicts the proportion of imports from Australia by Japan, the United States, China, and India over a period of 22 years from 1990 to 2012"
Explanation: The original phrase is grammatically incorrect and awkward. The revised version corrects the punctuation and uses a more formal and precise term ("depicts") to describe the graph, and properly capitalizes the names of countries according to style guidelines.
"it is clear that there was an increase in the proportion of imports in China and India with China witnessing the most dramatic rise but the opposite was true for the figures for Japan" -> "it is evident that there was a significant increase in the proportion of imports in China and India, with China experiencing the most substantial rise, whereas Japan exhibited a decline"
Explanation: The original phrase is somewhat informal and lacks precision. The revision uses "evident" and "significant" to enhance formality, and "experiencing" and "exhibited" to improve the academic tone. Additionally, "most dramatic" is replaced with "most substantial" to maintain a formal tone.
"the quantity of imports by China was the largest over the period shown" -> "China’s imports were the largest over the period depicted"
Explanation: The original phrase is slightly awkward and informal. The revision simplifies and clarifies the sentence structure, making it more direct and formal.
"imports by Japan were the most common 1990 with over 25%" -> "in 1990, Japan’s imports accounted for over 25%"
Explanation: The original phrase is grammatically incorrect and unclear. The revision corrects the grammatical structure and uses "accounted for" to provide a clearer and more formal expression.
"there was a significant decrease of roughly 9% in the number of imports by Japan" -> "there was a significant decrease of approximately 9% in Japan’s imports"
Explanation: The original phrase is awkwardly phrased. The revision clarifies the structure and removes the unnecessary space before the percentage, aligning with standard academic style.
"the figures for imports by the USA was over 10%" -> "the proportion of imports by the United States exceeded 10%"
Explanation: The original phrase is grammatically incorrect. The revision corrects the verb agreement and uses "exceeded" for a more formal tone, replacing "was" with "exceeded" to better suit the context.
"the number of imports by India stayed unchanged at 1% over the following 10 years" -> "India’s imports remained at 1% over the subsequent 10 years"
Explanation: The original phrase is somewhat informal and lacks precision. The revision uses "remained" for a more formal tone and clarifies the time period with "subsequent," enhancing the academic tone.
"then climbed slightly to 7% in the final year" -> "then rose slightly to 7% in the final year"
Explanation: The word "climbed" is somewhat informal for academic writing. "Rose" is a more precise and formal verb choice, fitting the context better.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay provides an overview of the main trends in the graph, but it does not fully extend the key features. For example, the essay states that "the quantity of imports by China was the largest over the period shown," but it does not provide any specific data to support this claim. The essay also presents some irrelevant details, such as the statement that "the number of imports by India stayed unchanged at 1% over the following 10 years." This detail is not relevant to the overall trend of the graph.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more specific data to support the overview of the main trends. The essay could also be improved by removing irrelevant details. For example, the essay could state that "China’s imports from Australia increased significantly over the period, reaching nearly 28% in 2012," rather than stating that "the quantity of imports by China was the largest over the period shown." The essay could also remove the statement that "the number of imports by India stayed unchanged at 1% over the following 10 years." This detail is not relevant to the overall trend of the graph.

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 discuss the trends in Australian exports to the four countries, the logical flow of ideas is often disrupted. There are instances of inadequate referencing and substitution, leading to some repetition. The paragraphing is present but not always effective, as the transitions between ideas can be unclear. Overall, the essay demonstrates some understanding of coherence and cohesion but falls short of a more structured and logical presentation.
How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, the writer should focus on creating clearer topic sentences for each paragraph that directly relate to the main trends being discussed. Additionally, using a wider range of cohesive devices and ensuring they are appropriately applied will help improve the flow of ideas. More attention should be given to logical progression, ensuring that each point builds on the previous one. Finally, refining paragraph structure to separate distinct ideas more clearly will contribute to a more organized response.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary relevant to the task, allowing for basic communication of the data presented in the graph. However, there are attempts to use less common vocabulary that are not always accurate, such as "attractions" instead of "countries" and "imports" instead of "exports." There are also some errors in word choice and spelling, such as "the most common 1990" which is unclear and could confuse the reader. While these errors do not completely impede understanding, they do detract from the overall clarity and precision of the essay.

How to improve: To enhance the lexical resource score, the writer should focus on using more precise vocabulary and ensuring that word choices accurately reflect the context. Additionally, expanding the range of vocabulary to include more varied and sophisticated terms related to data description would improve the essay. Proofreading for spelling and grammatical accuracy can also help to reduce errors that may distract the reader. Finally, using clear and coherent phrases to describe trends and comparisons will enhance the overall effectiveness of the 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, which is characteristic of a Band 6. While there are some grammatical errors and awkward phrasing, they do not significantly impede communication. The writer shows a reasonable attempt at using a variety of structures, but the overall accuracy and control of grammar and punctuation are inconsistent.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on the following areas:

Enhance Sentence Variety: Incorporate more complex sentence structures and ensure they are used correctly. This will improve the overall grammatical range.
Minimize Errors: Proofread the essay to identify and correct grammatical errors, particularly in subject-verb agreement and article usage.
Improve Clarity: Avoid awkward phrasing (e.g., "the most common 1990") and ensure that sentences are clear and concise.
Use Punctuation Effectively: Pay attention to punctuation, particularly in complex sentences, to enhance readability and clarity.

Bài sửa mẫu

The line graph illustrates the proportion of imports from Australia by Japan, the US, China, and India over a period of 22 years from 1990 to 2012. Overall, it is clear that there was an increase in the proportion of imports from China and India, with China witnessing the most dramatic rise, while the opposite trend was observed for Japan. Additionally, the quantity of imports by China was the largest throughout the period shown.

In 1990, imports by Japan were the most significant, accounting for over 25%, compared to only 3% from China. Over the following years, there was a significant decrease of roughly 9% in the number of imports by Japan. By contrast, the figures for imports from China experienced a dramatic rise throughout the period, ending at nearly 28% by 2012.

Looking at the other countries, the percentage of imports by the USA was over 10%, which was significantly higher than the figure for India, at only 1%. The number of imports from India remained unchanged at 1% for the following 10 years, before increasing to reach a peak of 7% in 2010, followed by a final drop to 5% in 2012. Meanwhile, despite some moderate fluctuations between 5% and 11% during the first 20 years, the figure for imports by the USA then climbed slightly to 7% in the final year.