The table below gives information about the number of deaths and amount of medical research funding in England

The two graphs detail the number of people killed by some of disease and financial investment spending for researching ones in England during 1990.
Overall, the number of people killed by TB was recorded the most, but the medical funding to research about it was the lowest in six diseases. Notably, despite ADIS causing the second lowest number of deaths, it received the highest funding.
In the terms of the number of the dead individuals, during 1990 in England observed about 1.8 million people killed by TB, which was substantially higher than Diarrhea with around half million people. The corresponding figure of Malaria and Tropical Diseases, which ranged from about 0.4 million and 0.3 million, respectively. Next was AIDS with 0.2 million and the lowest number belonged to Leprosy with merely 0.1 million.
It is interesting to note that AIDS was given about 180 million to research from medical funding, whereas the following by Tropical Diseases and Leprosy was invested about 80 million per disease. Surprisingly, the financial medical for TB was found to be the lowest, with only 20 million. In comparing with Diarrhea and Malaria were recorded higher than one, which accounted for 40 million and 30 million, in that order.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

"killed by some of disease" -> "killed by certain diseases"
Explanation: "Some of disease" is awkward and lacks precision. "Certain diseases" is a more formal and accurate phrase.
"financial investment spending for researching ones" -> "financial investment in researching them"
Explanation: "Financial investment spending for researching ones" is unclear and convoluted. "Financial investment in researching them" is more concise and grammatically correct.
"but the medical funding to research about it" -> "but the funding for medical research on it"
Explanation: "Medical funding to research about it" is wordy and awkward. "Funding for medical research on it" is clearer and more direct.
"Notably, despite ADIS causing the second lowest number of deaths" -> "Notably, despite AIDS causing the second lowest number of deaths"
Explanation: "ADIS" is likely a typographical error for "AIDS," the correct term for the disease.
"Notably, despite ADIS causing the second lowest number of deaths, it received the highest funding." -> "Remarkably, despite AIDS causing the second lowest number of deaths, it received the highest funding."
Explanation: "Notably" can be replaced with "Remarkably" for a stronger emphasis. Additionally, "AIDS" should be capitalized as it’s an acronym.
"In the terms of the number of the dead individuals" -> "In terms of the number of fatalities"
Explanation: "In the terms of the number of the dead individuals" is redundant and awkward. "In terms of the number of fatalities" is more concise and formal.
"observed about 1.8 million people killed by TB" -> "witnessed approximately 1.8 million TB-related fatalities"
Explanation: "Observed about 1.8 million people killed by TB" lacks precision and could be phrased more formally. "Witnessed approximately 1.8 million TB-related fatalities" provides a clearer and more precise description.
"which was substantially higher than Diarrhea with around half million people" -> "which was significantly higher than that of Diarrhea, which affected around half a million people"
Explanation: "Substantially higher than Diarrhea with around half million people" is grammatically incorrect and lacks clarity. "Significantly higher than that of Diarrhea, which affected around half a million people" provides a clearer and more grammatically correct comparison.
"The corresponding figure of Malaria and Tropical Diseases, which ranged from about 0.4 million and 0.3 million, respectively." -> "The corresponding figures for Malaria and Tropical Diseases were approximately 0.4 million and 0.3 million, respectively."
Explanation: "The corresponding figure of Malaria and Tropical Diseases" is awkward and lacks clarity. "The corresponding figures for Malaria and Tropical Diseases were approximately 0.4 million and 0.3 million, respectively" provides a clearer and more grammatically correct description.
"Next was AIDS with 0.2 million" -> "Next was AIDS, which accounted for 0.2 million deaths"
Explanation: "Next was AIDS with 0.2 million" lacks clarity and could be phrased more formally. "Next was AIDS, which accounted for 0.2 million deaths" provides a clearer and more precise description.
"the lowest number belonged to Leprosy with merely 0.1 million" -> "the lowest number of fatalities was attributed to Leprosy, totaling only 0.1 million"
Explanation: "the lowest number belonged to Leprosy with merely 0.1 million" is awkward and imprecise. "the lowest number of fatalities was attributed to Leprosy, totaling only 0.1 million" provides a clearer and more formal description.
"It is interesting to note that AIDS was given about 180 million to research from medical funding" -> "It is noteworthy that AIDS received approximately 180 million in medical research funding"
Explanation: "It is interesting to note" is a common phrase but can be replaced with "It is noteworthy." Additionally, "to research from medical funding" is awkward and should be rephrased as "in medical research funding."
"whereas the following by Tropical Diseases and Leprosy was invested about 80 million per disease." -> "whereas Tropical Diseases and Leprosy received approximately 80 million each."
Explanation: "The following by Tropical Diseases and Leprosy was invested about 80 million per disease" is unclear and awkward. "Tropical Diseases and Leprosy received approximately 80 million each" is more concise and clearer.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

[
Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay adequately addresses the task by providing an overview of the data presented in the graphs. It covers the main trends and key features such as the number of deaths by various diseases and the corresponding medical research funding. However, there are some inaccuracies in the data interpretation, such as stating that AIDS caused the second lowest number of deaths when it was actually Leprosy, and some minor grammatical errors that slightly affect clarity.
How to improve: To improve, ensure accuracy in interpreting the data provided and refine language use to enhance clarity and precision. Also, consider organizing the information more logically to improve coherence and cohesion.
]

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay presents some organization by discussing the number of deaths and medical research funding in England in 1990. However, there are issues with coherence and cohesion throughout the essay. The progression of ideas is somewhat lacking, and there are instances of inadequate cohesion, leading to some confusion for the reader. There is a basic attempt at paragraphing, but it could be improved for better clarity and logical flow.

How to improve: To improve coherence and cohesion, focus on structuring the essay with clear introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Ensure that ideas are logically sequenced, perhaps by discussing the diseases in order of prevalence or funding. Use cohesive devices more effectively to connect sentences and paragraphs, avoiding repetition and improving the overall flow of information. Additionally, pay attention to paragraphing, ensuring that each paragraph has a clear central topic and contributes to the overall coherence of the essay. Finally, proofread for grammatical errors and clarity to enhance the overall quality of writing.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 4

Band Score: 4.0

Explanation:
This essay demonstrates a limited range of vocabulary, often using basic words repetitively ("number of people killed," "medical funding," "research," "diseases," etc.). There are some attempts at less common vocabulary (e.g., "observed," "invested," "accounted for"), but they are not used with accuracy or fluency. The word choice is often inappropriate or lacks precision ("financial medical," "in comparing with"). There are also several errors in word formation and spelling, such as "ADIS" instead of "AIDS," "Diarrhea" instead of "Diarrhoea," and inconsistent capitalization of "tropical diseases." These errors can cause strain for the reader and impede communication.

How to improve:
To improve the Lexical Resource score, the writer should focus on expanding their range of vocabulary and using words more accurately and precisely. They should also pay attention to word formation and spelling to ensure that their writing is clear and easy to understand. Reading more academic texts and practicing writing with a focus on using a variety of vocabulary can be helpful.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates an attempt to use a variety of sentence structures, including both simple and complex sentences. However, there are instances where the complexity leads to inaccuracies, affecting the overall clarity. For instance, the sentence "Overall, the number of people killed by TB was recorded the most, but the medical funding to research about it was the lowest in six diseases" could be clearer with a more structured syntax. Additionally, there are grammatical errors throughout the essay, such as "Notably, despite ADIS causing the second lowest number of deaths, it received the highest funding," where "ADIS" should be corrected to "AIDS." Punctuation errors also occur, like the missing comma after "The corresponding figure of Malaria and Tropical Diseases." These errors, while not hindering overall comprehension significantly, do affect the fluidity of the essay.

How to improve:
To enhance grammatical range and accuracy, focus on refining sentence structures for clarity and correctness. Ensure consistent and appropriate use of punctuation marks. Proofreading the essay thoroughly for grammatical errors and revising where necessary can significantly improve the score. Additionally, aim for greater precision in vocabulary usage to convey ideas more effectively.

Bài sửa mẫu

The provided data outlines the number of fatalities attributed to various diseases and the corresponding allocation of medical research funding in England during the year 1990.

In general, tuberculosis (TB) accounted for the highest mortality rate among the diseases surveyed, despite receiving the least funding for research. Conversely, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) registered the second lowest fatality rate but secured the highest funding for medical research.

Regarding the mortality figures, TB claimed approximately 1.8 million lives in England during 1990, significantly surpassing fatalities due to diarrhea, which amounted to around half a million. Malaria and tropical diseases followed with figures of about 0.4 million and 0.3 million deaths, respectively. AIDS accounted for 0.2 million deaths, while leprosy recorded the lowest fatality rate with only 0.1 million deaths.

Of particular interest is the substantial allocation of 180 million in medical research funding for AIDS, contrasting with approximately 80 million allocated for both tropical diseases and leprosy. Notably, TB received the lowest research funding, totaling only 20 million. Comparatively, diarrhea and malaria research received more substantial funding, with allocations of 40 million and 30 million, respectively.