fbpx

The table gives information on the police budget for 2017 and 2018 in one area of Britain.

The table gives information on the police budget for 2017 and 2018 in one area of Britain.

The provided table delineates information about how much money was funded for the police force in an area in the UK in 2017 and 2018.
Overall, the amount of funding from three primary sources had increased. Although the volume of budget allocation from lax winners, the most significant growth, the national government had remained the largest of these.
The government nation was responsible for the highest amount of money searching from 175.5 million pounds to 177.8 million pounds between 2017 and 2018. although the amount of funding collected from local taxes had remained smaller the figure had observed the most considerable increase, from only 91.2 to 102.3 pounds. Additionally, other sources with the inclusion of grants provided a stable volume of budget allocation increasing from a modest 38 million pounds to 38.5 million pounds throughout two years mentioned. Furthermore, thanks to the significant increases the total amount of budget allocation that the police force operated on had surged, from 304.7 million pounds to a whopping 318.6 millions pounds.


Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

  1. "lax winners" -> "local authorities"
    Explanation: The term "lax winners" is unclear and incorrect. "Local authorities" is the appropriate term to refer to the local government or council in this context, enhancing clarity and formality.

  2. "searching" -> "allocated"
    Explanation: The verb "searching" is incorrectly used here. "Allocated" is the correct term to describe the distribution of funds, which is more precise and appropriate for an academic context.

  3. "although the amount of funding collected from local taxes had remained smaller the figure had observed the most considerable increase" -> "although the amount of funding from local taxes remained relatively small, it experienced the most significant increase"
    Explanation: This revision clarifies the comparison and corrects the awkward phrasing. The use of "relatively small" and "experienced" provides a more precise and natural expression in academic writing.

  4. "with the inclusion of grants" -> "including grants"
    Explanation: "With the inclusion of" is verbose and can be simplified to "including" for a more concise and formal tone suitable for academic writing.

  5. "a modest 38 million pounds to 38.5 million pounds" -> "a modest increase from 38 million pounds to 38.5 million pounds"
    Explanation: The original phrase is unclear. The suggested revision clarifies that the increase refers to the amount of funding, not the amount itself, which is more precise and contextually appropriate.

  6. "a whopping 318.6 millions pounds" -> "a substantial 318.6 million pounds"
    Explanation: "A whopping" is informal and not suitable for academic writing. "Substantial" is a more formal and precise adjective that maintains the intended emphasis without the colloquial tone.

These changes enhance the precision, clarity, and formality of the text, aligning it more closely with academic standards.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6

Explanation: The essay provides an overview of the information in the table, 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. For example, the essay states that the amount of funding from three primary sources had increased, but it does not provide any specific details about the increases. The essay also does not adequately highlight the key features/bullet points of the table. For example, the essay does not mention that the national government was the largest source of funding in both 2017 and 2018.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing a clearer overview of the main trends, differences, or stages. The essay could also be improved by highlighting the key features/bullet points of the table. For example, the essay could state that the national government was the largest source of funding in both 2017 and 2018, and that the amount of funding from local taxes increased the most. The essay could also be improved by providing more specific details about the increases in funding. For example, the essay could state that the amount of funding from the national government increased by 2.3 million pounds, and that the amount of funding from local taxes increased by 11.1 million pounds.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 4

Band Score: 4.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates some attempt to present information but lacks coherence and clear progression. There are significant issues with cohesion and paragraphing, making it difficult to follow the flow of ideas. The use of cohesive devices is basic and often inaccurate, which hinders the clarity of relationships between sentences and ideas. Paragraphing is inadequate, with unclear breaks between ideas.

How to improve:

  1. Organisation and Progression: Ensure a clear structure with an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Each paragraph should focus on a distinct aspect of the data presented.

  2. Cohesive Devices: Use a wider range of cohesive devices (e.g., pronouns, conjunctions) accurately to show logical relationships between ideas.

  3. Paragraphing: Clearly separate different points into paragraphs. Each paragraph should have a clear topic sentence and logically related supporting sentences.

This score reflects the need for significant improvement in organizing ideas and presenting them coherently and cohesively.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates a limited range of vocabulary appropriate for the task. It effectively communicates basic information about the police budget changes between 2017 and 2018 but lacks sophistication and precision in lexical choice. There are noticeable errors in word choice, spelling, and word formation throughout the essay, which may cause some difficulty for the reader. For example, "lax winners" instead of "local taxpayers", and "whopping millions pounds" instead of "significant increase in funding".

How to improve:

  1. Expand Vocabulary: Use a wider variety of vocabulary to convey ideas more precisely. For instance, replace repetitive phrases like "amount of funding" with alternatives like "budget allocation".
  2. Accuracy: Pay closer attention to word choice, spelling, and word formation to minimize errors that can detract from clarity and coherence.
  3. Clarity and Precision: Aim for clearer and more precise expressions to enhance the overall quality of the essay.

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 simple and some complex sentences. There are efforts made to convey information with a mix of sentence forms, though they are not always accurate. The essay attempts to describe the changes in police funding over two years, but there are noticeable grammatical errors throughout that affect clarity and coherence. For example, errors in subject-verb agreement ("the amount of funding from lax winners"), incorrect verb tense ("had increased" instead of "increased"), and inconsistent use of articles ("from 91.2 to 102.3 pounds" should be "from 91.2 to 102.3 million pounds") are present.

How to improve:

  1. Sentence Structure: Try to incorporate a wider range of sentence structures. Include more complex sentences to demonstrate a higher level of grammatical range.

  2. Accuracy: Pay close attention to grammatical accuracy, particularly verb forms, articles, and numerical expressions. Proofread carefully to correct errors in punctuation and subject-verb agreement.

  3. Clarity and Coherence: Ensure that each sentence contributes clearly to the overall meaning of the essay. Avoid awkward phrasing that may confuse the reader.

By focusing on these aspects, the essay can improve its grammatical range and accuracy to achieve a higher band score in the IELTS assessment criteria.

Bài sửa mẫu

The table presents data regarding the police budget allocated in a specific area of the UK for the years 2017 and 2018.

Overall, funding from three main sources saw an increase. The largest growth was observed in funding from local taxes, while funding from the national government remained the highest.

Specifically, funding from the national government rose from 175.5 million pounds in 2017 to 177.8 million pounds in 2018. In contrast, funding from local taxes, though starting lower at 91.2 million pounds in 2017, saw a significant increase to 102.3 million pounds by 2018. Grants and other sources combined contributed a steady 38 million pounds in 2017, rising marginally to 38.5 million pounds by 2018.

Consequently, the total police budget increased notably from 304.7 million pounds in 2017 to 318.6 million pounds in 2018, primarily driven by increases in funding from local taxes and the national government.

Bài viết liên quan

Phản hồi

Email của bạn sẽ không được hiển thị công khai. Các trường bắt buộc được đánh dấu *

IELTS Writify

Chấm IELTS Writing Free x GPT

Lưu ý

Sắp bảo trì server

Để đảm bảo tính ổn định của web, web sẽ thực hiện backup dữ liệu hàng ngày từ 3h-3h30 sáng

Rất mong quý thầy cô và học viên thông cảm vì bất tiện này