The table below shows the average band scores for students from different language groups taking the IELTS General Test in 2010.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

Essay topics:

The table below shows the average band scores for students from different language groups taking the IELTS General Test in 2010.

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

The diagram shows IELTS marks of students taking General Test in 2010, divided on nationality and detailed IELTS sessions.

At a glance, in each test session students gained at least six as average marks, with German reaching the highest overall at 6.7 and other students ranged between 6.5 of French and 6.3 of Indonesian, with Malay at 6.4.

Concerning specific sessions, speaking marks were the highest for all students categories. These marks ranged betweend 6.9 of German to 6.6 of French and Malay, with Indonesian at 6.7. The remaining sessions show various marks, with German and Indonesian more effective in listening tasks (respectively 6.8 and 6.3) than in reading and writing, whereas French got their better mark in writing and Malay in reading.

In the end, considering table information we recognise a better efficacy of German students in almost all IELTS sessions apart from reading, where Malay students were the best.

This ends the report.

Votes
Average: 7.3 (4 votes)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2017-08-25 Bek 84 view
2017-08-25 Bek 84 view
2017-08-25 Bek 89 view
2014-04-09 nindydyy 33 view
2017-08-25 Bek 92 view
Essays by user Umb221 :

Comments

Sentence: These marks ranged betweend 6.9 of German to 6.6 of French and Malay, with Indonesian at 6.7.
Error: betweend Suggestion: between

Sentence: In the end, considering table information we recognise a better efficacy of German students in almost all IELTS sessions apart from reading, where Malay students were the best.
Error: recognise Suggestion: No alternate word

flaws:
No. of Words: 151 200

Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 7.0 out of 9
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 6 10
No. of Words: 151 200
No. of Characters: 765 1000
No. of Different Words: 88 100
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.505 4.0
Average Word Length: 5.066 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.494 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 60 60
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 45 50
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 29 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 13 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.167 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.957 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.522 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.805 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.173 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4