The pie charts below illustrate the number of journal articles read per week by all students, PhD students, and junior lecturers at an Australian university. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The pie charts below illustrate the number of journal articles read per week by all students, PhD students, and junior lecturers at an Australian university.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The given pie chart illustrate the percentage of journal articles read week by graduate student divided into three groups in Autralian university.
Overall, as can be seen that there were significant imbalances among group of reseacher and the pattern per gruops is different.
As for all students, te number of people reading 6 to 11 articles accounted for 21%, while the figure of those studying over 12 articles made up 12%. 67% of students interviewed answered they comprehended 1 to 5 articles.
Moving to PrD students, the percentage of group learning 6 to 11 articles was second position at 15%, just ahead of over 12 articles with 80%. The lowest rate fell into individuals analysing 1 to 5 scientific papers.
In terms of junior lectures, reading over 12 articles came next at 24%, although this was significantly higher than the number of people researching 6 to 11 articles. The percentage of research student reading 1 to 5 articles accounted for only 1%.
Far higher PrD students as junior lectures read over 12 articles, 80% as opposed to 24%.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"The given pie chart illustrate" -> "The given pie chart illustrates"
Explanation: The verb "illustrate" should be in the singular form "illustrates" to agree with the singular subject "pie chart."
"week by graduate student" -> "by graduate students per week"
Explanation: The phrase "week by graduate student" is grammatically incorrect. The correct structure should be "by graduate students per week" to correctly convey the intended meaning.
"in Autralian university" -> "in Australian universities"
Explanation: The correct spelling is "Australian," and the phrase should be pluralized to "universities" as it refers to multiple institutions.
"significant imbalances among group of reseacher" -> "significant imbalances among research groups"
Explanation: "Group of reseacher" is incorrect and unclear. "Research groups" is the correct term and is more formal.
"per gruops" -> "per group"
Explanation: "Gruops" is a typographical error and should be corrected to "group."
"te number of people reading 6 to 11 articles" -> "the number of people reading 6 to 11 articles"
Explanation: "Te" is a typographical error and should be corrected to "the."
"made up 12%" -> "accounted for 12%"
Explanation: "Made up" is informal and vague; "accounted for" is more precise and formal.
"answered they comprehended" -> "reported that they comprehended"
Explanation: "Answered" is too informal for academic writing. "Reported that" is more appropriate and formal.
"Moving to PrD students" -> "Moving to PhD students"
Explanation: "PrD" is unclear and incorrect; "PhD" is the standard abbreviation for Doctor of Philosophy.
"the percentage of group learning" -> "the percentage of students learning"
Explanation: "Group" is vague; "students" is the correct subject to use in this context.
"just ahead of over 12 articles" -> "just ahead of those reading more than 12 articles"
Explanation: "Over 12 articles" is awkward and unclear; "those reading more than 12 articles" is clearer and more formal.
"The lowest rate fell into individuals analysing" -> "The lowest rate was among those analyzing"
Explanation: "Fell into individuals" is awkward and unclear. "Was among those analyzing" is more natural and formal.
"junior lectures" -> "junior lecturers"
Explanation: "Lectures" is a noun referring to a type of academic presentation, whereas "lecturers" refers to the individuals who give such presentations.
"Far higher PrD students as junior lectures" -> "Far more PhD students than junior lecturers"
Explanation: "Far higher" is incorrect; "far more" is the correct comparative form. Also, "PrD students as junior lectures" is grammatically incorrect; "PhD students than junior lecturers" corrects this.
"80% as opposed to 24%" -> "80% compared to 24%"
Explanation: "As opposed to" is informal and can be replaced with "compared to" for a more academic tone.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5

Explanation: The essay provides a general overview of the data, but it does not present a clear overview of the main trends. The essay also presents some key features, but it does not adequately cover all of them. For example, the essay does not mention that the majority of all students read 1 to 5 articles per week.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing a clearer overview of the main trends in the data. The essay could also be improved by providing more detailed information about the key features of the data. For example, the essay could mention that the percentage of PhD students reading over 12 articles per week is significantly higher than the percentage of junior lecturers reading over 12 articles per week.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay presents information with some organization, but there is a noticeable lack of overall progression. While it attempts to summarize the data from the pie charts, the structure is somewhat confusing, and the comparisons made are not always clear. The use of cohesive devices is inadequate, leading to some inaccuracies and repetition. For example, phrases like "the percentage of group learning" and "the lowest rate fell into individuals analysing" are awkward and can confuse the reader. Additionally, there are issues with paragraphing, as the essay does not clearly separate different groups or ideas, which affects the coherence of the response.

How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, the writer should focus on clearly organizing the essay into distinct paragraphs, each addressing a specific group or aspect of the data. Using a wider range of cohesive devices accurately and appropriately would help clarify relationships between ideas. Additionally, ensuring that comparisons are explicitly stated and logically structured would improve the overall flow of the essay. Proofreading for grammatical errors and awkward phrasing would also contribute to a clearer presentation of ideas.

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 convey the information from the pie charts, there are noticeable errors in word choice and spelling, such as "illustrate" instead of "illustrates," "Autralian" instead of "Australian," and "reseacher" instead of "researchers." These errors may cause some difficulty for the reader. The use of phrases like "significant imbalances" and "second position" shows an attempt to use less common vocabulary, but overall, the vocabulary is basic and repetitive. The essay lacks the flexibility and precision required for a higher band score.

How to improve: To improve the lexical resource score, the writer should focus on expanding their vocabulary by incorporating more varied and sophisticated word choices. They should also pay attention to spelling and grammatical accuracy, ensuring that all terms are used correctly. Practicing the use of collocations and less common lexical items in context will enhance the overall quality of the writing. Additionally, providing clearer comparisons and using more precise language to describe data will strengthen the essay.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a limited range of grammatical structures, primarily using simple sentences with some attempts at complex structures. However, these attempts are often inaccurate, leading to frequent grammatical errors that can cause difficulty for the reader. For example, phrases like "the percentage of group learning" and "the lowest rate fell into individuals analysing" are awkwardly constructed and may confuse the reader. Additionally, there are several spelling errors (e.g., "Autralian," "reseacher," "gruops," "PrD," "lectures") that detract from the overall clarity of the writing. While the essay communicates some information, the errors in grammar and punctuation hinder effective communication.

How to improve: To enhance the grammatical range and accuracy, the writer should focus on the following areas:

Expand Sentence Structures: Incorporate a greater variety of complex sentences and ensure they are grammatically correct.
Proofreading: Carefully check for spelling and grammatical errors before submission to improve clarity and professionalism.
Practice: Engage in exercises that focus on the use of subordinate clauses and more sophisticated vocabulary to elevate the overall quality of writing.
Feedback: Seek feedback from peers or instructors to identify specific areas of weakness and work on them systematically.

Bài sửa mẫu

The given pie chart illustrates the percentage of journal articles read per week by graduate students divided into three groups at an Australian university. Overall, there are significant imbalances among the groups of researchers, and the reading patterns differ across these groups.

For all students, the number of individuals reading 6 to 11 articles accounted for 21%, while the figure for those studying over 12 articles made up 12%. Additionally, 67% of students interviewed reported that they comprehended 1 to 5 articles.

Moving to PhD students, the percentage of this group reading 6 to 11 articles was in second position at 15%, just ahead of those reading over 12 articles, which stood at 8%. The lowest rate was for individuals analyzing 1 to 5 scientific papers.

In terms of junior lecturers, reading over 12 articles accounted for 24%, which was significantly higher than the number of people researching 6 to 11 articles. The percentage of research students reading 1 to 5 articles was only 1%.

PhD students read far more articles than junior lecturers, with 80% reading over 12 articles compared to 24%.