The table and charts below give information on the police budget for 2017 and 2018 in one area of Britain. the table shows where the money came from and the charts show how it was distributed

the provided table illustrates where the police in a specific region in Britain get fundings from while the pie charts delineate its distribution in various categories in two consecutive years, 2017 and 2018.
Overall, it is evident that the total police budget as well as each source witnessed an increase during the time shown, with the highest national government. Additionally, most of the money was spent on remuneration for officers and staffs during the time frame.

Upon initial examination for the origins of money, there was a rising concordance in every group, with roughly 14 million increase in total after a year. The figures for the national government stood at their majority in two years, with 175.5 million in 2017 and 177.8 million in 2018. While the data for local taxes raised by around 10 million, reaching to 102.3 million in 2018, that of other sources bottoming at the table in both two years, experienced a 0.5 million negligible increase after a year.
Pertaining to the contributions, it is clear that the percentage of buildings and transport was unchanged in the vicinity of less than one fifth. while the figures for technology increased from 8% to 14%, marking it still the lowest figures, those of wages dropped by 6%, but still in their premier position in two years.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

"get fundings from" -> "receive funding from"
Explanation: The correct noun form is "funding," not "fundings." The suggested phrase is more grammatically accurate and concise.
"the highest national government" -> "the largest source being the national government"
Explanation: The original phrasing is unclear. The suggested alternative clarifies that the national government is the largest source of funding.
"officers and staffs" -> "officers and staff"
Explanation: The plural of "staff" is "staff," not "staffs." The corrected term is the standard usage.
"rising concordance" -> "consistent increase"
Explanation: The original phrase is somewhat unclear and does not accurately convey the intended meaning. The suggested alternative clearly describes a steady upward trend.
"reaching to 102.3 million" -> "reaching 102.3 million"
Explanation: The word "to" is unnecessary in this context, and its removal creates a more natural-sounding phrase.
"bottoming at the table" -> "at the bottom of the table"
Explanation: The original phrasing is awkward and unclear. The suggested phrase conveys the idea of being at the lowest position more clearly.
"pertaining to the contributions" -> "regarding the expenditures"
Explanation: The term "contributions" does not accurately represent the topic of spending or expenses. The suggested term, "expenditures," is more appropriate when discussing budget distribution.
"premier position" -> "top position"
Explanation: Although "premier" can mean top or best, it is often used in contexts like sports or ranking. In this context, "top" is clearer and more straightforward.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 7

[
Band Score: 7.0
Explanation: The essay adequately covers the requirements of the task by providing an overview of the police budget sources and their distribution over two years. It presents a clear overview of the main trends in funding sources and spending categories, such as remuneration for officers and staff.
How to improve: To improve, the essay could further develop the response by providing more specific details or examples regarding the changes in funding sources and spending categories. Additionally, ensuring a smoother flow of information and avoiding repetitive phrases would enhance the overall clarity of the essay.
]

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6

Explanation: The essay arranges information coherently, providing a clear overview of the police budget in a specific British region for 2017 and 2018. It maintains a clear overall progression, starting with an introduction and following through with detailed discussions on funding sources and expenditure categories. However, there are instances of faulty cohesion within and between sentences, leading to some disruptions in the flow of ideas. For example, the transition between discussing funding sources and expenditure categories could be smoother. Additionally, there are minor issues with referencing and substitution, such as the repetitive use of "two years" instead of alternative phrases.

How to improve: To improve coherence and cohesion, ensure that transitions between ideas are smoother and more explicit. Use cohesive devices more effectively to connect sentences and paragraphs logically. Additionally, vary sentence structures and expressions to avoid repetitive phrasing and improve overall readability.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a sufficient range of vocabulary with some flexibility and precision. There is an attempt to use less common vocabulary, such as "concurrence," "negligible," and "premier position." The writer also utilizes varied sentence structures, contributing to lexical variety. However, there are occasional inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, such as "concurrence" instead of "increase" and "premier" instead of "primary." Additionally, some sentences could be more concise and clear for better lexical precision.

How to improve: To enhance lexical resource, strive for more precise word choices and collocations. Instead of less common words that might not fit perfectly, opt for simpler terms that convey the intended meaning accurately. Also, focus on clarity and conciseness to ensure that each word adds value to 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, incorporating a variety of structures such as compound sentences and descriptive phrases. There is an attempt to use complex sentence structures, although some are not executed accurately. For instance, "Upon initial examination for the origins of money, there was a rising concordance in every group…" This sentence attempts complexity but lacks clarity and precision. Despite occasional errors, the essay generally maintains coherence and clarity in conveying information regarding the police budget.

The essay also displays a moderate level of grammatical accuracy. While there are some errors in grammar and punctuation, they do not significantly hinder communication. For example, "funding" is misspelled as "fundings," and there are instances of awkward phrasing, such as "bottoming at the table," which could be improved for better clarity.

How to improve:
To enhance the grammatical range and accuracy, focus on refining complex sentence structures for clarity and precision. Proofreading for grammatical errors and revising awkward phrasing will improve overall coherence. Additionally, expanding the variety of sentence structures used, especially within complex sentences, can elevate the essay’s sophistication and accuracy.

Bài sửa mẫu

The provided data illustrates the allocation of funds for the police in a specific region of Britain, detailing the sources of funding and their distribution across various categories in the years 2017 and 2018.

Overall, there was a notable increase in the total police budget as well as each funding source over the two-year period, with the national government contributing the highest amount. The majority of the budget was allocated to remuneration for officers and staff during both years.

Examining the sources of funding, there was a consistent upward trend across all categories, resulting in a total increase of approximately £14 million over the year. The national government remained the primary contributor, providing £175.5 million in 2017 and £177.8 million in 2018. Local taxes also saw an increase of around £10 million, reaching £102.3 million in 2018, while other sources, though the smallest contributor, experienced a negligible increase of £0.5 million over the same period.

Regarding expenditure, the proportion allocated to buildings and transport remained unchanged at just under one-fifth. However, there was a notable increase in the allocation for technology, rising from 8% to 14% over the two years, though still the lowest proportion of expenditure. Conversely, expenditure on wages decreased by 6% but retained its position as the largest category of expenditure throughout the period.