The graph below shows average carbon dioxide (Co2) emissions per person in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy, and Portugal between 1967 and 2007.

Offered for examination is a line graph depicting the capita average carbon emitted in different European continents over a 40-years period. The figures were recorded in metric tonnes.
Overall, it is evident that UK had holded first-ranked position in the given period. Additionally, whereas UK along with Sweden had undergone the downward trend throughout the timeframe, opposed to Italy and Portugal, increasing exponentially over four decades.
Examining the data more closely, in 1967, United Kingdom significantly dominanted over the rest, commencing at roughly 11 metric tonnes. Despite observing massive drop by approriate 2 metric tonnes at the end of the period, it still stood at dominant position of 9 metric tonnes by 2007. Somewhat similarly, the average carbon emissions in Sweden started at second-ranked position at nearly 9 metric tonnes, then underwent the substantial increase over a decade and reached the peak of above 10 metric tonnes in 1977 though from there, however, constantly shrunk down to approximately 5 metric tonnes by the end of the timeframe.
Moving onto the remaining statistics, conversely, both Italy’s and Portugual’s average carbon emissions per person went up remarkably. Initially, by 1967. Italy’s capita average carbon emissions rose as much twice as the starting point via the jumping from lust over 4 metric tonnes to around 8 metric tonnes over the next 40 years. Consequenty, Portugual begun with the lowest figure at under 2 metric tonners, then experiencing the noticeable growth to nearly 5 metric tonnes throughout the timeline.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"Offered for examination is a line graph" -> "The line graph presented for examination"
Explanation: "Offered for examination" is somewhat awkward and informal. Using "The line graph presented for examination" is more direct and formal, fitting the academic style better.
"capita average carbon emitted" -> "average carbon emissions per capita"
Explanation: "Capita average carbon emitted" is grammatically incorrect. "Average carbon emissions per capita" is the correct and formal expression for this context.
"had holded" -> "had held"
Explanation: "Had holded" is a typographical error. The correct verb form is "had held," which is necessary for maintaining grammatical accuracy.
"increasing exponentially" -> "increased exponentially"
Explanation: "Increasing" is a gerund form that should be used as a verb, not an adjective. "Increased exponentially" corrects this and aligns with the passive voice used in the sentence.
"significantly dominanted" -> "significantly dominated"
Explanation: "Dominanted" is a typographical error. The correct spelling is "dominated," which is necessary for maintaining the formal tone and accuracy of the text.
"approriate" -> "appropriate"
Explanation: "Approriate" is a spelling error. Correcting it to "appropriate" ensures the text is free of typos and maintains professionalism.
"dominant position of 9 metric tonnes" -> "dominant position, with 9 metric tonnes"
Explanation: The original phrase is awkwardly phrased. Adding "with" clarifies the relationship between the position and the metric tonnes, improving readability and formality.
"Somewhat similarly" -> "Similarly"
Explanation: "Somewhat similarly" is redundant. "Similarly" is sufficient and maintains the formal tone without unnecessary emphasis.
"substantial increase" -> "substantial increase in"
Explanation: Adding "in" before "increase" clarifies that the increase refers to the metric tonnes, enhancing the sentence structure and precision.
"constantly shrunk down" -> "consistently decreased"
Explanation: "Constantly shrunk down" is informal and imprecise. "Consistently decreased" is more formal and appropriate for academic writing.
"Portugual" -> "Portugal"
Explanation: "Portugual" is a typographical error. Correcting it to "Portugal" maintains accuracy and professionalism.
"capita average carbon emissions rose as much twice as the starting point" -> "carbon emissions per capita rose by twice the starting point"
Explanation: The original phrase is awkward and grammatically incorrect. The revised version corrects these issues and clarifies the meaning.
"lust over 4 metric tonnes" -> "from 4 metric tonnes"
Explanation: "Lust" is incorrect and unclear in this context. "From" is the correct preposition needed to indicate the origin of the increase.
"Consequenty" -> "Consequently"
Explanation: "Consequenty" is a typographical error. Correcting it to "Consequently" ensures the text is free of errors and maintains professionalism.
"tonners" -> "tonnes"
Explanation: "Tonners" is a misspelling. Correcting it to "tonnes" ensures the text is accurate and professional.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5

Explanation: The essay generally addresses the task, but the format is inappropriate in places. The essay does not provide a clear overview of the main trends in the data. The essay focuses on details, such as the starting and ending points of each line, but does not adequately cover the key features of the graph. For example, the essay does not mention that the UK’s emissions decreased steadily over the period, while Sweden’s emissions increased initially before decreasing.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing a clearer overview of the main trends in the data. The essay should also focus on the key features of the graph, such as the overall trends and the most significant changes. The essay should avoid focusing on details that are not relevant to the main trends.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay presents information with some organization, but there is a noticeable lack of overall progression. While it attempts to discuss the trends in carbon dioxide emissions, the ideas are not always logically sequenced, leading to confusion. The use of cohesive devices is inadequate and at times inaccurate, which detracts from the clarity of the writing. For instance, phrases like "moving onto the remaining statistics" and "conversely" are used, but they do not effectively guide the reader through the argument. Additionally, there are issues with paragraphing; the essay could benefit from clearer divisions between different sections of the analysis.

How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, the writer should focus on logically organizing ideas and ensuring a clear progression throughout the essay. This can be achieved by using a variety of cohesive devices appropriately and avoiding repetition. Improving paragraphing by clearly defining separate ideas or trends within distinct paragraphs would also help. Furthermore, ensuring that all references and substitutions are clear will aid in maintaining the reader’s understanding of the information presented.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a limited range of vocabulary that is minimally adequate for the task. While it attempts to convey information about carbon dioxide emissions, there are noticeable errors in word choice and spelling, such as "holded," "dominated," "apporpriate," "substantial increase," and "tonners." These errors may cause some difficulty for the reader in understanding the intended meaning. Additionally, the use of phrases such as "first-ranked position" and "second-ranked position" is somewhat awkward and repetitive, which detracts from the overall lexical resource.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on expanding their vocabulary and using more precise and varied expressions. They should also pay attention to spelling and grammatical accuracy, as well as the appropriate use of collocations. Incorporating less common lexical items and ensuring that word choices are contextually appropriate would enhance the overall quality of the essay. Additionally, improving sentence structure and coherence would contribute to a clearer presentation of ideas.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a limited range of grammatical structures, primarily relying on simple sentence forms with some attempts at complex sentences. While there are some accurate structures, frequent grammatical errors and issues with punctuation are present throughout the essay, which can cause difficulty for the reader. For example, phrases like "UK had holded first-ranked position" and "dominanted over the rest" contain errors that detract from clarity. Additionally, the use of "via the jumping from lust over 4 metric tonnes" is awkward and unclear. Overall, while the essay conveys the main ideas, the grammatical inaccuracies hinder effective communication.

How to improve: To enhance the grammatical range and accuracy, the writer should focus on the following strategies:

Expand Sentence Variety: Incorporate a wider range of complex sentence structures to improve the overall variety and sophistication of the writing.
Proofreading: Carefully proofread the essay to identify and correct grammatical errors, particularly with verb forms and sentence construction.
Practice Grammar: Engage in targeted grammar exercises to strengthen understanding of verb tenses, subject-verb agreement, and proper use of prepositions.
Read and Analyze: Read high-scoring IELTS essays to analyze their grammatical structures and learn how to implement similar techniques in writing.

Bài sửa mẫu

Offered for examination is a line graph depicting the average carbon dioxide emissions per capita in different European countries over a 40-year period. The figures are recorded in metric tonnes.

Overall, it is evident that the UK held the first-ranked position during the given period. Additionally, while the UK and Sweden experienced a downward trend throughout the timeframe, Italy and Portugal saw exponential increases over the four decades.

Examining the data more closely, in 1967, the United Kingdom significantly dominated the rest, commencing at roughly 11 metric tonnes. Despite observing a massive drop of approximately 2 metric tonnes by the end of the period, it still maintained a dominant position of 9 metric tonnes by 2007. Similarly, the average carbon emissions in Sweden started in the second-ranked position at nearly 9 metric tonnes, then underwent a substantial increase over a decade, reaching a peak of above 10 metric tonnes in 1977. However, from that point, it consistently declined to approximately 5 metric tonnes by the end of the timeframe.

Moving on to the remaining statistics, both Italy’s and Portugal’s average carbon emissions per person increased remarkably. Initially, in 1967, Italy’s per capita carbon emissions rose to twice the starting point, jumping from just over 4 metric tonnes to around 8 metric tonnes over the next 40 years. Consequently, Portugal began with the lowest figure at under 2 metric tonnes, then experienced noticeable growth to nearly 5 metric tonnes throughout the timeline.