The line graph gives the information about US government spending on research between 1980 to 2008

The graph demonstrates the data about US government expenditures in five fields ( Health, Space Energy, General Science and Others) over the period of 28 years starting from 1980.
Overall, while Health, Space, Energy General Science witnessed an upward trend, Others fell gradually over the period shown.
Additionally, the US government spent the largest amount of money on Health which became the most focused field annually.
At the beginning of the period, General Science and Space were around at 2.5 billion and 5 billion respectively. After 12 years, the figures for General Science and Space, despite some fluctuations, remained the same at 2.5 billion and 5 billion accordingly. Next 8 years, the volume of money spent on two fields grew modestly by 2.5 billion. Over the last 8 years, General Science remained constant at 5 billion. By contrast, there was a slight decrease in the volume of money of money spent on Space.
In 1980, Others and Energy were. approximately at 7.5 and 5 billion respectively. In the following 8 years, the Others go down insignificantly to 5 billion. At the same time, Energy stabilizes at 5 billion. After 8 years, Energy grew remarkably until peaking at the highest point at 7.5 billion. Next 4 years, Energy experienced a sharp decrease from 7.5 to 5 billion. In the following 8 years, the figures for Energy increased suddenly. From 1988 to 2000, Other increased significantly by 2.5 billion. Over the last 8 years of the period, the quantity of money expenses on Other increased moderately to 5 billion.
In 1980, the amount of money spent on Health was at 8 billion. From 1980 to 2004, these figures for Health rocketed until reached a high of 25 billion, and the domains of Health became the top concerns of the US Government. In the last 4 years of the period, the Health decline steeply to 17.5 billion.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"The graph demonstrates the data about" -> "The graph presents data on"
Explanation: "Presents data on" is more concise and academically appropriate than "demonstrates the data about," which is redundant and less formal.
"five fields ( Health, Space Energy, General Science and Others)" -> "five fields: Health, Space, Energy, General Science, and Others"
Explanation: Adding a colon after "fields" is necessary for clarity and proper punctuation in academic writing, and capitalizing the first letter of each field name is standard practice.
"witnessed an upward trend" -> "experienced an upward trend"
Explanation: "Experienced" is more commonly used in academic contexts to describe changes over time, whereas "witnessed" might imply observation rather than direct participation.
"fell gradually" -> "decreased gradually"
Explanation: "Decreased" is more precise and commonly used in academic contexts to describe a reduction in quantity or amount.
"the largest amount of money on Health" -> "the largest amount of funding for Health"
Explanation: "Funding" is more specific and appropriate in the context of government expenditures than "money," which is too general.
"became the most focused field annually" -> "remained the primary focus annually"
Explanation: "Remained the primary focus" is more precise and formal, indicating a sustained emphasis rather than a one-time event.
"At the beginning of the period, General Science and Space were around at 2.5 billion and 5 billion respectively." -> "Initially, General Science and Space allocated 2.5 billion and 5 billion, respectively."
Explanation: "Initially" is a more formal temporal marker than "At the beginning," and "allocated" is more specific than "were around at," which is vague and informal.
"despite some fluctuations, remained the same" -> "despite fluctuations, remained consistent"
Explanation: "Remained consistent" is more formal and precise than "remained the same," which is somewhat redundant.
"volume of money spent on two fields grew modestly" -> "funding for these two fields increased modestly"
Explanation: "Funding" is more specific and formal than "volume of money spent," and "increased" is more direct than "grew."
"volume of money of money" -> "funding"
Explanation: This is a typographical error, likely a double "money." Correcting it to "funding" maintains clarity and formality.
"Others and Energy were." -> "Others and Energy were approximately"
Explanation: Adding "approximately" clarifies that the figures are not exact, which is important in academic reporting.
"Others go down insignificantly" -> "Others decreased insignificantly"
Explanation: "Decreased" is more precise and formal than "go down," which is informal and vague.
"Energy grew remarkably until peaking at the highest point" -> "Energy increased significantly, peaking at its highest point"
Explanation: "Increased significantly" is more formal and precise than "grew remarkably," and "peaking at its highest point" avoids redundancy.
"the domains of Health became the top concerns" -> "

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6

Explanation: The essay provides an overview of the main trends in the graph, but it does not fully satisfy all the requirements of the task. The essay does not present a clear overview of the main trends, differences or stages. The essay also presents and adequately highlights key features/ bullet points but details may be irrelevant, inappropriate or inaccurate.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing a clearer overview of the main trends in the graph. The essay could also be improved by providing more accurate and relevant details about the key features of the graph. For example, the essay states that "the figures for General Science and Space, despite some fluctuations, remained the same at 2.5 billion and 5 billion accordingly." However, the graph shows that the figures for General Science and Space did not remain the same. The essay could also be improved by using more precise language to describe the trends in the graph. For example, instead of saying that "the figures for Energy increased suddenly," the essay could say that "the figures for Energy increased sharply."

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 in the argument. While it attempts to describe trends in government spending, the sequencing of ideas is not always clear, leading to confusion. There are instances of inadequate referencing and substitution, which contribute to repetitiveness. The use of cohesive devices is inconsistent, with some phrases appearing mechanical or inaccurate. Additionally, paragraphing is present but not logically structured, which detracts from the overall coherence of the essay.

How to improve:

Enhance Logical Flow: Ensure that each paragraph has a clear central topic and that ideas progress logically from one to the next. Use linking words and phrases to guide the reader through the argument.
Improve Cohesive Devices: Vary the use of cohesive devices and avoid over-reliance on certain phrases. Ensure that all references are clear and that substitution is used effectively to avoid repetition.
Refine Paragraph Structure: Organize the essay into distinct paragraphs that each focus on a specific aspect of the data. This will help clarify the relationships between different pieces of information.
Clarify Data Presentation: When discussing figures, ensure that the language is precise and that comparisons are clearly articulated. This will help in presenting a more coherent narrative of the data trends.

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 describe the data presented in the graph, the vocabulary used is basic and repetitive, with some inaccuracies in word choice and collocation (e.g., "the volume of money of money spent" and "the domains of Health"). There are noticeable errors in spelling and word formation that may cause some difficulty for the reader, such as "rocketed until reached" and "the Health decline steeply." These issues hinder the overall clarity and effectiveness of the communication.

How to improve: To enhance the Lexical Resource score, the writer should aim to incorporate a wider range of vocabulary, including less common lexical items, to convey precise meanings. Additionally, focusing on correct word forms and collocations will improve clarity. Proofreading for spelling errors and ensuring grammatical accuracy will also help in achieving a higher band score. Engaging with more sophisticated vocabulary and practicing varied sentence structures can further enhance the essay’s lexical richness.

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 it attempts to convey information clearly, there are several grammatical errors and issues with punctuation that occasionally hinder communication. For instance, phrases like "the volume of money of money spent" and "the domains of Health became the top concerns" contain redundancy and awkward constructions. Additionally, there are instances of incorrect verb forms and missing articles, which detract from the overall accuracy. However, the meaning is generally clear, and the essay does provide a coherent overview of the data presented in the graph.
How to improve: To enhance the grammatical range and accuracy, the writer should focus on the following areas:

Sentence Structure: Incorporate a wider variety of complex sentence structures while ensuring they are grammatically correct.
Proofreading: Carefully review the essay for typographical errors and redundancies, as these can lead to confusion.
Punctuation: Pay attention to punctuation rules, particularly with commas and periods, to improve clarity and flow.
Grammar Practice: Engage in targeted grammar exercises to strengthen understanding of verb forms, articles, and sentence construction.

Bài sửa mẫu

The graph demonstrates data about US government expenditures in five fields (Health, Space, Energy, General Science, and Others) over a period of 28 years starting from 1980. Overall, while Health, Space, Energy, and General Science witnessed an upward trend, expenditures on Others fell gradually over the period shown. Additionally, the US government spent the largest amount of money on Health, which became the most focused field annually.

At the beginning of the period, General Science and Space were around 2.5 billion and 5 billion, respectively. After 12 years, the figures for General Science and Space, despite some fluctuations, remained the same at 2.5 billion and 5 billion, accordingly. In the next 8 years, the volume of money spent on the two fields grew modestly by 2.5 billion. Over the last 8 years, General Science remained constant at 5 billion. By contrast, there was a slight decrease in the amount of money spent on Space.

In 1980, expenditures on Others and Energy were approximately 7.5 billion and 5 billion, respectively. In the following 8 years, spending on Others decreased insignificantly to 5 billion. At the same time, Energy stabilized at 5 billion. After 8 years, Energy grew remarkably until peaking at the highest point of 7.5 billion. In the next 4 years, Energy experienced a sharp decrease from 7.5 to 5 billion. In the following 8 years, the figures for Energy increased suddenly. From 1988 to 2000, spending on Others increased significantly by 2.5 billion. Over the last 8 years of the period, the amount of money spent on Others increased moderately to 5 billion.

In 1980, the amount of money spent on Health was 8 billion. From 1980 to 2004, expenditures on Health rocketed until reaching a high of 25 billion, making Health the top concern of the US government. In the last 4 years of the period, spending on Health declined steeply to 17.5 billion.