Do you want to improve your writing? Try our new evaluation service and get detailed feedback.
Check Your Text it's free

The table below shows the proportion of different categories of families living in poverty in Australia in 1999. v.3

The table below shows the proportion of different categories of families living in poverty in Australia in 1999. v. 3
The table data outlines the ratio and number of impoverished families in Australia in the year 1999. It is evident that more than one-tenth of Australian families, approximately 1. 8 million in total, lived in poverty in 1999, and couples with children made the highest number of destitute families. According to the table data, only 6% aged singles and 4% aged couple lived in poverty in 1999. It is evident that elder Australians were economically stronger than their younger counterparts. Again, 19% singles without any child were not affluent and their total number was just over 0. 35 million. Compared to that, only 7% couples with no children suffered from poverty. Furthermore, sole-parents who were poor in 1999 were 232, 000 in number and their poverty ratio was 21%, the highest. Finally, 12% couple with children lived in the destitute situation in 1999 and their percentage was 12% and the total number was 933, 000. This type of family had the largest number of poverty-stricken households, though, their percentage was lower than that of poor sole parents and singles with no children.
The table data outlines the ratio and
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
number
of impoverished families in Australia in the year 1999.

It is evident that more than one-tenth of Australian families, approximately 1. 8 million in total,
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
lived
in
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
poverty
in 1999, and
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
couples
with
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
children
made the highest
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
number
of destitute families.

According to the table data,
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
only
6% aged singles and 4% aged
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
couple
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
lived
in
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
poverty
in 1999. It is evident that elder Australians were
economically
stronger than their younger counterparts. Again, 19% singles without any child were not affluent and their total
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
number
was
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
just
over 0. 35 million. Compared to that,
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
only
7%
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
couples
with no
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
children
suffered from
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
poverty
.
Furthermore
, sole-parents who were poor in 1999 were 232, 000 in
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
number
and their
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
poverty
ratio was 21%, the highest.
Finally
, 12%
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
couple
with
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
children
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
lived
in the destitute situation in 1999 and their percentage was 12% and the total
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
number
was 933, 000. This type of family had the largest
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
number
of poverty-stricken households, though, their percentage was lower than that of poor sole parents and singles with no
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
children
.
2Linking words, meeting the goal of 7 or more
18Repeated words, meeting the goal of 3 or fewer
0Mistakes

IELTS academic The table below shows the proportion of different categories of families living in poverty in Australia in 1999. v. 3

Academic
  American English
3 paragraphs
182 words
6.5
Overall Band Score
Coherence and Cohesion: 7.0
  • Structure your answers in logical paragraphs
  • ?
    One main idea per paragraph
  • ?
    Include an introduction and conclusion
  • ?
    Support main points with an explanation and then an example
  • Use cohesive linking words accurately and appropriately
  • ?
    Vary your linking phrases using synonyms
Lexical Resource: 5.5
  • Try to vary your vocabulary using accurate synonyms
  • Use less common question specific words that accurately convey meaning
  • Check your work for spelling and word formation mistakes
Grammatical Range: 6.0
  • Use a variety of complex and simple sentences
  • Check your writing for errors
Task Achievement: 7.0
  • Answer all parts of the question
  • ?
    Present relevant ideas
  • Fully explain these ideas
  • ?
    Support ideas with relevant, specific examples
Labels Descriptions
  • ?
    Currently is not available
  • Meet the criteria
  • Doesn't meet the criteria
Similar posts


Recent posts