This bar chart illustrates the government spending percentage on roads and transportation in Italy, Portugal, The UK, and the US between 1990 and 2005.

This bar chart illustrates the government spending percentage on roads and transportation in Italy, Portugal, The UK, and the US between 1990 and 2005. Overall, it clearly illustrates significant variations in government spending on roads and transportation across Italy, Portugal, the UK, and the USA over a period of five years, with a general trend of decreasing in the countries.
Firstly, spending on roads and transport of the Italian government was relatively stable, ranging from 19% to 24%. In 1990, Italy’s expenditure of 22% that was higher than UK which just had only 10% and USA with 11%, although it consistently lagged Portugal by approximately 5 percentage. Secondly, the Portugal government’s spending on roads and transportation has been decreasing year after year. In 1990, the Portugal government was spending 26%, but it declined by an average of 2% per year. Besides that, although Portugal was decreasing, it was the highest spending percentage in roads and transportation of the four countries. Thirdly, the UK government has the lowest spending percentage on roads and transportation among the four countries. Between 1990 and 1995, the spending percentage on roads and transportation of the UK government decreased a little by about 1%. In 2000, it rose heavily from 8% to 13%, but by the year 2005, it had decreased by one-third compared to 2000. Fourthly, the US government’s expenditure grew steadily from 2% to 4%. Only in 1995, it fell slightly by about 1%, which was insignificant. In the four countries, the US had the third highest increase in road and transportation expenditure. Finally, the bar chart highlights the varying trends in government spending on roads and transportation for the four countries. While Portugal and the UK experienced significant fluctuations, Italy maintained relative stability, and the US experienced a slight increase in spending.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"the government spending percentage on roads and transportation" -> "the percentage of government spending on roads and transportation"
Explanation: The revised phrase improves clarity by placing "percentage" before "of government spending," which is a more standard construction in academic writing.
"it clearly illustrates significant variations" -> "it reveals significant variations"
Explanation: "Reveals" is a more precise term that conveys the act of uncovering or showing data, while "illustrates" is somewhat redundant since it has already been used in the first sentence.
"with a general trend of decreasing in the countries" -> "with a general trend of decrease in the countries"
Explanation: The noun "decrease" is more appropriate than the gerund "decreasing" in this context, as it aligns better with the phrase "general trend."
"spending on roads and transport of the Italian government" -> "spending on roads and transportation by the Italian government"
Explanation: "By" is a more appropriate preposition in this context, indicating the agent of the action (the government) more clearly.
"Italy’s expenditure of 22% that was higher than UK which just had only 10% and USA with 11%" -> "Italy’s expenditure of 22%, which was higher than that of the UK at only 10% and the USA at 11%"
Explanation: This revision clarifies the comparison by using "that of" to refer back to "Italy’s expenditure," and "at" provides a clearer context for the percentages.
"it consistently lagged Portugal by approximately 5 percentage" -> "it consistently lagged behind Portugal by approximately 5 percentage points"
Explanation: "Lagged behind" is the correct phrase, and "percentage points" is the standard term used in academic contexts to refer to differences in percentage values.
"the Portugal government’s spending" -> "the Portuguese government’s spending"
Explanation: "Portuguese" is the correct adjective to describe the government of Portugal, adhering to formal language conventions.
"but it declined by an average of 2% per year" -> "but it declined at an average rate of 2% per year"
Explanation: "At an average rate of" is a more precise expression that enhances clarity regarding the nature of the decline.
"although Portugal was decreasing, it was the highest spending percentage in roads and transportation of the four countries" -> "although Portugal’s spending was decreasing, it maintained the highest percentage of spending on roads and transportation among the four countries"
Explanation: This revision clarifies that it is Portugal’s spending that is decreasing and uses "maintained" to emphasize the continued status of being the highest spender.
"the spending percentage on roads and transportation of the UK government decreased a little by about 1%" -> "the spending percentage on roads and transportation by the UK government decreased slightly by approximately 1%"
Explanation: "Slightly" is a more formal alternative to "a little," and "approximately" is preferred over "about" in academic writing.
"it rose heavily from 8% to 13%" -> "it increased significantly from 8% to 13%"
Explanation: "Increased significantly" is a more formal and precise expression than "rose heavily," which can sound informal.
"by the year 2005, it had decreased by one-third compared to 2000" -> "by 2005, it had decreased by one-third relative to 2000"
Explanation: "Relative to" is a more precise term than "compared to," enhancing the academic tone.
"the US government’s expenditure grew steadily from 2% to 4%" -> "the US government’s expenditure increased steadily from 2% to 4%"
Explanation: "Increased" is a more precise term than "grew" in academic contexts.
"Only in 1995, it fell slightly by about 1%, which was insignificant" -> "In 1995, it fell slightly by approximately 1%, which was negligible"
Explanation: "Negligible" is a more formal term than "insignificant," enhancing the academic tone.
"the US had the third highest increase in road and transportation expenditure" -> "the US experienced the third highest increase in road and transportation expenditure"
Explanation: "Experienced" is a more precise verb choice that conveys the action more effectively.
"the varying trends in government spending on roads and transportation for the four countries" -> "the varying trends in government spending on roads and transportation among the four countries"
Explanation: "Among" is the correct preposition to use when referring to multiple entities, improving grammatical accuracy.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6

Explanation: The essay provides an overview of the main trends in government spending on roads and transportation in the four countries. It also presents and highlights key features/bullet points, but some details are irrelevant or inaccurate. For example, the essay states that the UK government’s spending on roads and transportation decreased by one-third compared to 2000, but the chart shows that it decreased by about 5%.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more accurate and relevant details. The writer should also focus on presenting a clear overview of the main trends, rather than simply listing the data for each country. For example, the writer could state that the overall trend in government spending on roads and transportation was decreasing in all four countries, but that the rate of decrease varied. The writer could also highlight the fact that Portugal had the highest spending percentage in all years, while the UK had the lowest.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay arranges information and ideas coherently, providing a clear overall progression from one country’s spending to another. However, while cohesive devices are used effectively, there are instances of mechanical cohesion, such as repetitive phrases and a lack of varied linking words. The paragraphing is present but could be improved for better logical flow; for example, the transitions between the discussions of each country could be smoother. Additionally, some references to data (e.g., "the US had the third highest increase") could be clearer to enhance understanding.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on using a wider range of cohesive devices to connect ideas more naturally. Improving the logical flow between paragraphs and ensuring that each paragraph has a clear central topic will also enhance coherence. Additionally, reducing redundancy and ensuring that references to data are precise and clear will contribute to a more cohesive essay.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary relevant to the task. It attempts to use less common vocabulary, such as "expenditure" and "fluctuations," but there are inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, such as "the UK which just had only 10%," which could be more clearly expressed. Some phrases are awkwardly constructed, and there are errors in spelling and word formation, such as "the Portugal government" instead of "the Portuguese government." While these errors do not severely impede communication, they do detract from the overall clarity and precision of the essay.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on expanding their vocabulary and using more precise word choices. They should also aim to reduce grammatical errors and improve sentence structure for better clarity. Practicing the use of collocations and ensuring correct forms of adjectives and nouns (e.g., using "Portuguese" instead of "Portugal") would enhance the lexical resource. Additionally, incorporating a wider range of synonyms and varying sentence structures can contribute to a more sophisticated and fluent expression of ideas.

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. There are some grammatical errors and issues with punctuation, such as "the UK which just had only 10%" (which could be more clearly phrased) and "the Portugal government" (should be "the Portuguese government"). These errors are present but do not significantly hinder communication. The essay does convey the main ideas effectively, but the grammatical inaccuracies and occasional awkward phrasing prevent it from achieving a higher score.

How to improve: To improve the score, the writer should focus on increasing the accuracy of complex structures and reducing grammatical errors. This can be achieved by reviewing sentence constructions, ensuring proper use of articles and prepositions, and practicing more complex sentence forms. Additionally, enhancing punctuation usage will contribute to clearer communication. Regular practice with feedback on grammar and structure will help in achieving a higher band score.

Bài sửa mẫu

This bar chart illustrates the percentage of government spending on roads and transportation in Italy, Portugal, the UK, and the US between 1990 and 2005. Overall, it clearly shows significant variations in government expenditure on roads and transportation across these four countries over the specified period, with a general trend of decrease observed in most of them.

Firstly, the spending on roads and transport by the Italian government remained relatively stable, fluctuating between 19% and 24%. In 1990, Italy’s expenditure was 22%, which was higher than that of the UK at just 10% and the US at 11%, although it consistently lagged behind Portugal by approximately 5 percentage points. Secondly, the Portuguese government’s spending on roads and transportation has been declining year after year. In 1990, Portugal allocated 26% to this sector, but this figure decreased by an average of 2% per year. Despite this decline, Portugal had the highest percentage of spending on roads and transportation among the four countries.

Thirdly, the UK government had the lowest spending percentage on roads and transportation among the four nations. Between 1990 and 1995, the UK’s expenditure decreased slightly by about 1%. However, in 2000, it saw a significant rise from 8% to 13%, but by 2005, it had decreased by one-third compared to 2000. Fourthly, the US government’s expenditure grew steadily from 2% to 4%. It only experienced a slight decline of about 1% in 1995, which was relatively insignificant. Among the four countries, the US had the third highest increase in road and transportation expenditure.

Finally, the bar chart highlights the varying trends in government spending on roads and transportation for the four countries. While Portugal and the UK experienced significant fluctuations, Italy maintained relative stability, and the US saw a slight increase in spending.