The graph below shows the proportion of four different materials that were recycled from 1982 to 2010 in a particular country. Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant.

The graph below shows the proportion of four different materials that were recycled from 1982 to 2010 in a particular country.
Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant.

The line graph illustrates the percentage of four distinct categories that were recycled between 1982 and 2010 in a nation.

As can be inferred from the graph, there were upward trajectories in the recycling rate of four material types. Meanwhile, slight fluctuations could be observed in the recycling proportion of paper and cardboard and glass containers over the surveyed period.

Regarding paper and cardboard, and glass containers, the former accounted for 65% in 1982, which was 15% higher, compared to the rate of glass containers being recycled. In the following 12 years, the recycling rate of paper-based materials reached its peak of 80%, before marginally decreasing by 10% until 2010. Meanwhile, the similar sector of glass containers hit the nadir of 40% in 1990, then substantially grew to the highest point of 60% in 2010.

The examination of remaining categories reveals a steady upward trend of recycling rate for aluminium cans, with no cans were recycled in 1982 until 1986 and reached its zenith at 45% in the final year. Being recycled later than one year, compared to aluminium cans, the percentage of plastics being recycled was similar to cans, but this sector only witnessed a slight increase by 10% during 20 years.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

1. "The line graph illustrates" -> "The line graph depicts"
   Explanation: "Depicts" is a more precise and formal term than "illustrates" in academic contexts, enhancing the formal tone of the introduction.

2. "distinct categories" -> "four distinct categories"
   Explanation: Adding "four" clarifies the number of categories being discussed, providing specificity and precision.

3. "upward trajectories" -> "increasing trends"
   Explanation: "Increasing trends" is a more commonly used term in academic writing to describe the direction of change over time, making it more suitable for formal analysis.

4. "slight fluctuations" -> "modest fluctuations"
   Explanation: "Modest" is a more academically appropriate adjective than "slight," which can sound too informal and vague in this context.

5. "the former accounted for" -> "the former comprised"
   Explanation: "Comprised" is a more precise term for describing the proportion of something within a category, fitting better in an academic context.

6. "being recycled" -> "recycled"
   Explanation: Removing "being" simplifies the sentence structure, making it more direct and formal.

7. "the similar sector of glass containers" -> "the sector of glass containers"
   Explanation: Removing "similar" avoids redundancy, as the comparison to paper and cardboard has already been made earlier in the paragraph.

8. "hit the nadir" -> "reached its lowest point"
   Explanation: "Reached its lowest point" is a more formal and precise way to describe the lowest point in a trend, avoiding the colloquialism "hit the nadir."

9. "no cans were recycled" -> "no cans were recycled"
   Explanation: Adding "were" corrects the grammatical error, ensuring proper verb agreement.

10. "until 1986 and reached its zenith at 45%" -> "until 1986 and reached a zenith of 45%"
    Explanation: Adding "a" before "zenith" corrects the grammatical structure, and "of 45%" clarifies the measurement.

11. "Being recycled later than one year, compared to aluminium cans, the percentage of plastics being recycled was similar to cans, but this sector only witnessed a slight increase by 10% during 20 years."
    Explanation: This sentence is overly complex and convoluted. Simplifying it to "Plastics were recycled later than aluminum cans, with a 10% increase over the 20-year period" improves readability and maintains formality.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6

Explanation: The essay provides an overview of the main trends in the recycling rate of four materials. It also highlights some key features, such as the peak recycling rate of paper and cardboard and the steady upward trend of aluminium cans. However, the essay does not fully extend the key features and some details are irrelevant or inaccurate. For example, the statement that "no cans were recycled in 1982 until 1986" is not supported by the graph.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more detailed information about the key features and by avoiding irrelevant or inaccurate statements. The writer could also use more precise language to describe the trends in the graph. For example, instead of saying "slight fluctuations," the writer could say "a slight decrease followed by a slight increase."

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay arranges information and ideas coherently, presenting a clear overall progression from the introduction to the analysis of the data. However, while cohesive devices are used effectively, there are instances where cohesion within and between sentences appears mechanical or somewhat faulty. For example, phrases like "the former accounted for 65%" could be clearer with better referencing. Additionally, the paragraphing is present but not always logical, as some ideas could be better grouped together for clarity. Overall, the essay meets the criteria for Band 6 due to its coherent arrangement of ideas and overall progression, but it lacks the sophistication and clarity required for a higher score.

How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, the writer should focus on using a wider variety of cohesive devices and ensuring that referencing is clear and appropriate. Improving the logical grouping of ideas into paragraphs would also strengthen the overall structure. Additionally, avoiding repetition and ensuring that each paragraph presents a distinct central topic would help elevate the score.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary relevant to the task, with some attempts to use less common lexical items. However, there are inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, such as "the former accounted for 65% in 1982, which was 15% higher, compared to the rate of glass containers being recycled," which could be more clearly expressed. Additionally, there are some errors in spelling and word formation, such as "no cans were recycled" instead of "no cans were being recycled," which slightly impede communication but do not severely distort the message.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on expanding their vocabulary range and using more precise and varied expressions. They should also ensure correct collocation and word formation to enhance clarity. Reducing grammatical errors and improving the overall coherence of the essay would contribute positively to the lexical resource score.

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. While there are some attempts at complex structures, the overall grammatical accuracy is inconsistent. There are noticeable errors in grammar and punctuation, such as "no cans were recycled" (which should be "no cans were recycled in 1982") and awkward phrasing like "the similar sector of glass containers hit the nadir." These errors do not significantly impede communication, but they do detract from the overall clarity and fluency of the writing.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on improving grammatical accuracy and increasing the variety of sentence structures. This can be done by practicing complex sentence forms and ensuring that all sentences are grammatically correct. Additionally, proofreading for common errors in punctuation and word choice can enhance clarity. Using more precise vocabulary and varying sentence length can also contribute to a more sophisticated writing style.

Bài sửa mẫu

The line graph illustrates the percentage of four distinct categories that were recycled between 1982 and 2010 in a particular country.

As can be inferred from the graph, there were upward trajectories in the recycling rates of all four material types. Meanwhile, slight fluctuations can be observed in the recycling proportions of paper and cardboard and glass containers over the surveyed period.

Regarding paper and cardboard, this category accounted for 65% in 1982, which was 15% higher compared to the recycling rate of glass containers. In the following 12 years, the recycling rate of paper-based materials reached its peak of 80% before marginally decreasing by 10% until 2010. Meanwhile, the recycling rate of glass containers hit a low of 40% in 1990, then substantially grew to its highest point of 60% in 2010.

An examination of the remaining categories reveals a steady upward trend in the recycling rate for aluminium cans, with no cans being recycled in 1982 until 1986, when it reached its zenith at 45% in the final year. Recycled one year later than aluminium cans, the percentage of plastics being recycled was similar to that of cans, but this sector only witnessed a slight increase of 10% over the 20-year period.