The table represents the percentage of students reviewing the quality of a university in 2000, 2005 and 2010. These surveys are based on five aspects: teaching quality, print resources, electronic resources, range of modules offered and building/teaching facilities.

Overall, the number of good ratings for the first three fields were upward while that of remaining aspects remained unchanged or even decreased though a three-year-stage.

Print resources accounted for 87% of good ratings, which was superior to 77% for facilities, 65% for teaching quality in 2000. Electronic resources and ranges of modules offered, however, were about a half and one-third of print resources respectively.

In the next five years, the quantity of votes for print resources just increased by 2%, which was roughly 10 times as low as that of electronic resources (72%). Both teaching quality and range of modules offered were given fewer good responses by 2%, compared to 65% and 32% in 2000.

In the year 2010, only the range of modules offered continued to receive fewer high ratings (27%) whereas both print resources and electronic resources met the demand of most students (88%). Additionally, an insignificant rise in good marks for teaching was shown in 69% while only facilities kept the same rate at 77% in three surveys conducted.


(212 words)

The table represents (wrong verb) the percentage of students reviewing the quality of a university (Incorrect - is it the percentage of the entire student body who participated in the survey? ) in 2000, 2005 and 2010. These surveys asked about are based on five aspects in this order: (You have to write "in this order" because you next refer to the first three in the list.) teaching quality, print resources, electronic resources, range of modules offered and building/teaching facilities.

Overall, the number percentage of good ratings for the first three questions fields were upward (wrong phrase - were higher, went up, increased, rose ) while that of the other two remaining aspects remained unchanged or even decreased though a three-year-stage. (wrong phrase)

Print resources accounted for 87% of good ratings, (wrong phrase. This means that of all the good ratings, print resources got 87% and the other questions got a total of 13% That is incorrect. You use the verb phrase "accounted for" wrongly.) which was superior to 77% for facilities, 65% (ungrammatical. Missing conjunction) for teaching quality in 2000. Electronic resources and ranges of modules offered, however, were about a half and one-third of print resources respectively.

In the next five years, the quantity (wrong word) of votes for print resources just increased by 2%, which was roughly 10 times as low as (wrong phrase) that of electronic resources (72%). (I do not understand your point.) Both teaching quality and range of modules offered were given 2% fewer good responses by 2%, compared to 65% and 32% in 2000.

In the year 2010, only the range of modules offered continued to receive fewer high ratings (27%) whereas both print resources and electronic resources were rated good or better by met the demand of most students (88%). Additionally, an insignificant rise in good marks for teaching (??) was shown in 69% while only facilities kept the same value rate at 77% in all three surveys conducted.


You should not write four body paragraphs. Two is enough, one for the main features, and one for the details. Your essay is too long.

Sample essay

A university conducted a survey in 2000, 2005 and 2010 asking about its teaching quality, print resources, electronic resources, range of modules offered, and the facilities. The table lists the percentages of "good" ratings in each category.

Overall, the majority of respondents gave good ratings, but there were some notable exceptions. Less than one-third agreed that the range of modules was adequate, and in the first survey, electronic resources were not well rated either. However, that improved substantially in the later surveys.

In detail, print resources garnered the highest positive response in all three years, just under 90%. In 2000, less than half of the respondents rated electronic resources as good, (45%) but it tied with print resources in 2010 at 88%. The two categories, teaching quality and facilities, did not change very much, with about two-thirds (63% to 69%) rating the first as good, and 77% rating the second as good. The category with the lowest ratings, range of modules offered, actually declined, from 32 to 30 and finally 27% in the latest survey.