The graph below shows the percentage of the Australian workforce in five industries between 1962 and 2012. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant

The graph compares the portions of Australian workers in five industries from 1962 to 2012. Overall, all of the surveyed industries experienced varying degrees of fluctuation, sectors such as manufacturing and agriculture were on a downward trajectory while Australian workers in services had a surge in percentage.
Of the five industries, only mining, construction and services exhibited an upward trend. The portion of the Australian workforce enjoyed the most substantial growth in services, despite slight drops around 1982 and near 1992. It enjoyed the highest percentage of Australian employees (roughly 52%) at the start and this rate accelerated throughout the years, nearing 80% by the end. Construction's percentage of Australian employees displayed some oscillations but stayed at approximately 10% for most of the period. In addition, its portion peaked between 2002 and 2012, although it had a 50-year low of 7% from 1992 to 2002. Mining, on the other hand, encountered a relatively stagnant proportion of Australian workers throughout the period which was between 2% and 3%, the lowest of the surveyed industries.
The remaining sectors, namely manufacturing and agriculture, suffered a gradual decrease in Australian workers. Initially, the manufacturing industry had the 2nd highest portion of Australians at around 27%, only behind services. This percentage, however, stagnated from 1962 and 1972 and saw a steady decrease from 1972 onwards, leaving it equal to construction's rate of 10% in 2012. Meanwhile, agriculture experienced a moderate fall in Australian workers, bringing its portion from 12% in 1962 to only marginally higher than mining's percentage in 2012, earning it the 2nd lowest position.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

"portions of Australian workers" -> "proportions of Australian workforce"
Explanation: "Portions" is less formal and precise than "proportions" when referring to sections or shares of a workforce.
"fluctuation" -> "fluctuations"
Explanation: "Fluctuation" is singular; "fluctuations" is the plural form, which is grammatically correct when referring to multiple changes.
"sectors such as manufacturing and agriculture" -> "industries such as manufacturing and agriculture"
Explanation: "Sectors" generally refers to parts of a whole, while "industries" is more appropriate when referring to distinct economic sectors like manufacturing and agriculture.
"trajectory" -> "trend"
Explanation: "Trajectory" implies a specific path or direction, whereas "trend" is more commonly used to describe the general movement of data over time.
"Australian workers in services had a surge" -> "the percentage of Australian workers in services surged"
Explanation: This revision clarifies that the surge refers to the percentage of workers in services, not the workers themselves.
"enjoyed the most substantial growth" -> "experienced the most significant growth"
Explanation: "Experienced" is a more neutral and formal term compared to "enjoyed" in this context.
"Australian workforce enjoyed" -> "Australian workforce experienced"
Explanation: "Experienced" is a more appropriate term here to describe the phenomenon of growth in the Australian workforce.
"percentage of Australian employees" -> "proportion of Australian employees"
Explanation: "Proportion" is more precise than "percentage" when referring to a part of a whole.
"peaked between 2002 and 2012" -> "peaked from 2002 to 2012"
Explanation: This change clarifies the duration during which the peak occurred.
"encountered a relatively stagnant proportion" -> "maintained a relatively stagnant proportion"
Explanation: "Maintained" better conveys the idea of a consistent proportion over time.
"a 50-year low of 7%" -> "a low of 7% over a 50-year period"
Explanation: This change clarifies the duration over which the low occurred.
"experienced a moderate fall in Australian workers" -> "experienced a moderate decline in the number of Australian workers"
Explanation: "Decline" is more precise than "fall" in this context.
"bringing its portion from 12% in 1962 to only marginally higher than mining’s percentage in 2012" -> "bringing its proportion from 12% in 1962 to just above mining’s 2% in 2012"
Explanation: "Proportion" is more precise than "portion," and "just above" is clearer than "marginally higher."

These adjustments ensure a more precise and formal presentation of the data in the essay.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation:
The essay adequately covers the requirements of the task by summarizing the main features and making relevant comparisons between the industries over the specified time period. It provides a clear overview of the main trends in the percentage of Australian workers in each industry and highlights key features such as the upward trend in the services sector and the downward trajectories in manufacturing and agriculture. The essay effectively presents and highlights key points, illustrating the fluctuations in workforce percentages over the 50-year period.

How to improve:
To further enhance the essay and potentially achieve a higher band score, consider providing more specific data points or trends within each industry, such as peak years or significant events that may have influenced workforce percentages. Additionally, ensure that all comparisons are explicitly relevant and clearly articulated to strengthen the coherence and cohesion of the essay.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0
Explanation: The essay logically organizes the information and ideas, providing a clear progression throughout. Each paragraph focuses on a specific industry, presenting a central topic within each. Cohesive devices are used appropriately, aiding in the flow of the essay. The essay effectively compares the percentages of Australian workers in different industries over time, with clear transitions between points.
How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion further, consider using more varied cohesive devices and ensuring consistent paragraphing. Additionally, providing clearer transitions between paragraphs can strengthen the overall flow of the essay.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a good range of vocabulary throughout, with varied word choices and some less common lexical items. The writer uses precise language to describe the trends in the graph, such as "fluctuation," "trajectory," "oscillations," and "stagnant." There is an attempt to convey meaning with flexibility and precision. However, there are occasional inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, such as "surge in percentage" which could be improved to "a significant increase in percentage." Spelling and word formation are generally accurate, with only rare errors noticed.

How to improve: To further enhance the Lexical Resource, focus on using more sophisticated vocabulary consistently. Avoid repetitive phrases like "portion of Australian workers" and strive for greater variety. Pay attention to word choice and collocation to ensure precise meaning conveyance. Proofread for any minor errors in spelling or word formation to maintain clarity and fluency.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0
Explanation: The essay demonstrates a good control of grammar and punctuation with the use of a variety of complex structures. The sentences are mostly error-free, contributing to clear communication of ideas. There is a range of sentence structures used throughout the essay, aiding in coherence and cohesion.
How to improve: To potentially reach a higher band score, ensure consistency in the use of complex structures and minimize occasional errors or inappropriacies. Keep refining sentence structures for enhanced clarity and precision.

Bài sửa mẫu

The provided graph illustrates the percentage distribution of Australian employees across five distinct industries spanning the period from 1962 to 2012. Overall, fluctuations were observed across all sectors, with manufacturing and agriculture witnessing declines, while services experienced a notable increase in workforce representation.

Of the industries surveyed, mining, construction, and services demonstrated an upward trajectory. The services sector notably experienced significant growth, beginning with approximately 52% of Australian workers in 1962 and steadily increasing to nearly 80% by 2012, notwithstanding minor declines in 1982 and around 1992. Construction maintained a relatively stable percentage, hovering around 10% throughout the period, with a peak between 2002 and 2012, although it dipped to a low of 7% from 1992 to 2002. Conversely, mining exhibited a relatively static proportion of Australian employees, fluctuating between 2% and 3% throughout the fifty-year span, marking it as the industry with the lowest representation.

Meanwhile, manufacturing and agriculture experienced gradual declines in workforce participation. Initially, manufacturing held the second-highest proportion of Australian workers, around 27%, following services. However, this figure plateaued from 1962 to 1972 and steadily decreased thereafter, ultimately matching construction’s 10% share by 2012. Similarly, agriculture witnessed a decline from 12% of Australian workers in 1962 to a marginally higher percentage than mining by 2012, placing it as the second-lowest industry in terms of workforce representation.