The table below gives information on visitor statistics for 1996, 1998 and 2000 for various World heritage sites in Australia.

The table provides information about visitor numbers to various World Heritage destinations in Australia over three different years, from 1996 to 2000.
What is the most striking when looking at the data is the visitors to Great Barrier Reef registered the highest usage figures throughout the period, with its peak in 2000. Despite this, Shark Bay and Macquarie Island experienced minimal fluctuations, while the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserve slightly declined over the period, and the Great Barrier Reef, Blue Mountains, and Tasmania Wilderness also witnessed marginal growth.
During the given time, the majority of visitors to Great Barrier Reef experienced the highest visitor growth among all the listed World Heritage sites. Beginning at 1,670,000 in 1996, the cohort of Great Barrier Reef visitors registered a rise of about 1,280,000 until 2008, after which it surged to 3,200,000 in 2010, which is notably the highest figure on the whole chart. In contrast, after the visitor statistics figures for Central Eastern Rainforest Reserve shrink modestly to 790,000 in 1998, and further underwent a marginal reduction to 770,000 in 2000.
Looking at the demographic of the Blue Mountains, there was a substantial rise in visitor numbers, reaching 565,000 in 1998, after which it underwent a trivial expansion to 581,000 in 2000. The trajectory observed in the Tasmania Wilderness roughly mirrored the trend seen in the Blue Mountains. Tasmania Wilderness, which oscillated from 450,000 to approximately 475,000 during the 1996-1998 period, before experiencing a meager ascent to 483,000 in 2000.
Turning to the remaining sites, Shark Bay's visitor numbers fluctuated slightly over the period. Starting at 84,000 visitors in 1996, the numbers rose to 102,000 in 1998, but then dropped again to 89,000 by 2000. Finally, Macquarie Island, which attracted the smallest number of visitors, showed very minor fluctuations, with the number hovering around 300 across the three years from 350 in 1996 to 310 in 1998, before recovering slightly to 330 in 2000.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"What is the most striking when looking at the data is" -> "One of the most striking aspects of the data is"
Explanation: The phrase "What is the most striking when looking at the data is" is awkwardly constructed and informal. Replacing it with "One of the most striking aspects of the data is" refines the sentence structure and aligns it with formal academic language.
"registered the highest usage figures" -> "recorded the highest visitor numbers"
Explanation: "Registered the highest usage figures" is unclear and awkward. "Recorded the highest visitor numbers" is more precise and contextually appropriate for discussing visitor statistics.
"minimal fluctuations" -> "minimal variation"
Explanation: "Minimal fluctuations" can be vague and imprecise. "Minimal variation" is more specific and academically suitable for describing changes in data.
"marginal growth" -> "modest growth"
Explanation: "Marginal growth" can imply insignificance, which might not be the intended meaning. "Modest growth" conveys a more neutral and precise description of moderate change.
"the majority of visitors to Great Barrier Reef experienced the highest visitor growth" -> "visitors to the Great Barrier Reef experienced the greatest growth"
Explanation: The original phrase is awkwardly constructed and redundant. Simplifying it to "visitors to the Great Barrier Reef experienced the greatest growth" improves clarity and conciseness.
"Beginning at 1,670,000 in 1996, the cohort of Great Barrier Reef visitors registered a rise of about 1,280,000 until 2008" -> "Starting with 1,670,000 in 1996, the number of Great Barrier Reef visitors increased by approximately 1,280,000 to 2008"
Explanation: The original phrase is wordy and unclear. The revised version is more direct and precise, avoiding unnecessary words like "cohort."
"after which it surged to 3,200,000 in 2010" -> "before surging to 3,200,000 in 2010"
Explanation: The original phrase implies a direct connection between the events, which is not clear. "Before surging to 3,200,000 in 2010" correctly indicates the sequence of events.
"the visitor statistics figures for Central Eastern Rainforest Reserve shrink modestly" -> "the visitor statistics for the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserve decreased modestly"
Explanation: "Shrink" is not the correct verb for describing a decrease in statistics. "Decreased" is the appropriate term for quantifiable data.
"a trivial expansion" -> "a slight increase"
Explanation: "Trivial" can imply insignificance, which might not be the intended meaning. "Slight increase" is neutral and accurately describes a small change.
"meager ascent" -> "small increase"
Explanation: "Meager" is an adjective typically used to describe something lacking in quality or quantity. "Small increase" is more precise and appropriate for describing a numerical change.
"hovering around 300" -> "remaining relatively stable at around 300"
Explanation: "Hovering around" is informal and vague. "Remaining relatively stable at around 300" provides a clearer and more formal description of consistency in data.

These changes enhance the academic tone of the essay by using more precise and contextually appropriate vocabulary, improving clarity and formality.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6

Explanation: The essay addresses the requirements of the task and presents an overview with information appropriately selected. The essay presents and adequately highlights key features/bullet points, but some details are irrelevant, inappropriate, or inaccurate. For example, the essay states that the Great Barrier Reef experienced a rise of about 1,280,000 until 2008, but the table only provides data up to 2000. Additionally, the essay mentions a "cohort of Great Barrier Reef visitors" which is not a relevant term in this context.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by focusing on the most significant trends and avoiding irrelevant details. The writer should also ensure that all information presented is accurate and relevant to the task. The essay could also be improved by using more precise language and avoiding unnecessary repetition. For example, instead of saying "the cohort of Great Barrier Reef visitors registered a rise of about 1,280,000 until 2008," the writer could say "the number of visitors to the Great Barrier Reef increased by approximately 1,280,000 between 1996 and 2000."

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay arranges information and ideas coherently, presenting a clear overall progression throughout the response. However, while cohesive devices are used effectively, there are instances where cohesion within and between sentences is somewhat mechanical or lacks variety. For example, phrases like "during the given time" and "turning to the remaining sites" could be more varied to improve flow. Additionally, while paragraphing is present, it does not always follow a logical structure, which affects the clarity of the overall argument.

How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, the writer should focus on varying cohesive devices and ensuring that each paragraph has a clear central topic that logically connects to the next. Improving the logical flow between ideas and refining the use of paragraphing will also contribute to a higher band score.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a sufficient range of vocabulary, allowing for flexibility and precision in conveying information about visitor statistics. The writer uses less common lexical items, such as "oscillated," "surged," and "demographic," showing awareness of style and collocation. However, there are occasional errors in word choice and phrasing, such as "registered the highest usage figures" which could be more naturally expressed. Additionally, there are minor inaccuracies in the presentation of data, which detracts slightly from the overall clarity.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on enhancing the precision of word choice and ensuring that all phrases are used correctly in context. Expanding the range of vocabulary further, particularly with more sophisticated synonyms and expressions, would also be beneficial. Reducing minor errors in spelling and word formation will improve overall lexical resource.

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 Band 6. While the writer attempts to use a variety of structures, there are noticeable errors in grammar and punctuation that occasionally hinder clarity. For example, phrases like "the visitors to Great Barrier Reef registered the highest usage figures" could be more clearly expressed, and there are instances of awkward phrasing that may confuse the reader. Additionally, some sentences are overly complex, leading to potential misinterpretation of the data presented.

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

Simplifying Complex Sentences: Break down overly complex sentences into clearer, more concise statements to improve readability.
Proofreading for Errors: Carefully check for grammatical errors and punctuation mistakes, ensuring that they do not interfere with the overall communication of ideas.
Expanding Sentence Variety: Incorporate a wider range of sentence structures while maintaining accuracy to demonstrate greater flexibility in grammar usage.
Clarifying Data Presentation: Use clearer phrases to describe data trends, ensuring that the information is presented in a straightforward manner.

Bài sửa mẫu

The table provides information about visitor numbers to various World Heritage destinations in Australia over three different years, from 1996 to 2000.

What is most striking when examining the data is that the Great Barrier Reef recorded the highest visitor figures throughout the period, peaking in 2000. In contrast, Shark Bay and Macquarie Island experienced minimal fluctuations, while the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserve saw a slight decline over the period. The Great Barrier Reef, Blue Mountains, and Tasmania Wilderness also exhibited marginal growth.

During the given time, the Great Barrier Reef experienced the highest visitor growth among all the listed World Heritage sites. Beginning at 1,670,000 in 1996, visitor numbers for the Great Barrier Reef rose by approximately 1,280,000 until 2000, after which it surged to 3,200,000 in 2000, which is notably the highest figure on the entire chart. In contrast, visitor statistics for the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserve shrank modestly to 790,000 in 1998 and further declined to 770,000 in 2000.

In terms of the Blue Mountains, there was a substantial rise in visitor numbers, reaching 565,000 in 1998, followed by a slight increase to 581,000 in 2000. The trend observed in the Tasmania Wilderness roughly mirrored that of the Blue Mountains. The visitor numbers for Tasmania Wilderness oscillated from 450,000 to approximately 475,000 during the 1996-1998 period, before experiencing a modest ascent to 483,000 in 2000.

Turning to the remaining sites, Shark Bay’s visitor numbers fluctuated slightly over the period. Starting at 84,000 visitors in 1996, the numbers rose to 102,000 in 1998, but then dropped again to 89,000 by 2000. Finally, Macquarie Island, which attracted the smallest number of visitors, showed very minor fluctuations, with the number hovering around 300 across the three years, from 350 in 1996 to 310 in 1998, before recovering slightly to 330 in 2000.