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

The table illustrates how many visitors traveled to 4 World Heritage sites in Australia from 1996 to 2000.

In general, while the number of travelers visiting the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Blue Mountain (BM), Tasmania Wilderness (TW) and Shark Bay (SB) grew with different extents, the opposite trend was true for Central Eastern Rainforest Reserve (CERR) and Macquarie Island (MI). In which, GBR had the most apparent change in the whole table.

According to the table, in 1996, GBR attracted 1670000 travelers, which was the highest number among 6 World Heritage Sites. At the same time, those figures for BM and TW were 526000 and 45000 respectively and SB had the lowest total number at 84000. After 2 years, SB witnessed a growth by 18000 people before dropping to hit the trough of 89000 visitors in 2000. There was a drastic increase of GBR to reach 3200000 travelers in 2000, and still ranked first through the period. While TW and BM had a gradual growth from 1996 and kept 483000 and 581000 people in 2000.

In terms of MI, it had the number dropped by 40 in the first 2 years before climbing slightly to 330 in 2000 while the figure for CERR decreased 20000 people every two years from 810000 in 1996 to 770000 at the end of period.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"In general, while the number of travelers visiting" -> "Generally, while the number of travelers visiting"
Explanation: Removing the space before "while" corrects a typographical error, enhancing the grammatical accuracy of the sentence.
"grew with different extents" -> "increased at varying rates"
Explanation: "Increased at varying rates" is more precise and academically appropriate than "grew with different extents," which is vague and informal.
"In which, GBR had the most apparent change" -> "In particular, GBR exhibited the most significant change"
Explanation: "In particular" is more formal and appropriate for academic writing than "In which," and "exhibited the most significant change" is more precise and formal than "had the most apparent change."
"those figures for BM and TW were 526000 and 45000 respectively and SB had the lowest total number at 84000" -> "the figures for BM and TW were 526,000 and 45,000, respectively, while SB recorded the lowest total at 84,000"
Explanation: This revision clarifies the sentence structure and uses commas correctly for readability, replacing the informal "had the lowest total number at" with "recorded the lowest total at."
"dropping to hit the trough of 89000 visitors" -> "dropping to a low of 89,000 visitors"
Explanation: "Dropping to a low of" is a more formal and precise expression than "dropping to hit the trough of," which is colloquial and less precise.
"There was a drastic increase of GBR to reach 3200000 travelers" -> "GBR experienced a significant increase to 3,200,000 travelers"
Explanation: "Experienced a significant increase" is more formal and precise than "had a drastic increase," and the number should be written in numerals for clarity and formality.
"While TW and BM had a gradual growth" -> "TW and BM exhibited gradual growth"
Explanation: "Exhibited gradual growth" is more formal and precise than "had a gradual growth."
"kept 483000 and 581000 people" -> "maintained 483,000 and 581,000 visitors"
Explanation: "Maintained" is a more formal verb than "kept," and using commas separates the numbers correctly for readability.
"the figure for CERR decreased 20000 people every two years" -> "the figure for CERR decreased by 20,000 people every two years"
Explanation: Adding "by" and commas to the number improves the grammatical structure and clarity.
"dropped by 40 in the first 2 years" -> "decreased by 40 in the first two years"
Explanation: "Decreased by" is more appropriate in formal writing than "dropped by," and "two" should be spelled out for consistency in numerical formatting.
"climbing slightly to 330" -> "increasing slightly to 330"
Explanation: "Increasing" is more formal and appropriate than "climbing" in this context, which is too colloquial for academic writing.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6

Explanation: The essay provides an overview of the data, but the information is not always appropriately selected. For example, the essay states that "SB witnessed a growth by 18000 people before dropping to hit the trough of 89000 visitors in 2000," but this information is not particularly relevant to the overall trends in the data. The essay also presents some inaccurate information, such as stating that "TW and BM had a gradual growth from 1996 and kept 483000 and 581000 people in 2000." While the numbers are correct, the essay does not accurately describe the trend in the data.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by focusing on the most significant trends in the data and providing more accurate information. The essay could also be made more concise by removing unnecessary details. For example, the essay could simply state that "the number of visitors to the Great Barrier Reef increased significantly between 1996 and 2000, while the number of visitors to the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserve decreased."

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay arranges information and ideas coherently, presenting a clear overall progression. It provides a general overview and specific details about visitor statistics for the World Heritage sites. However, while cohesive devices are used effectively, there are instances where cohesion within and between sentences is somewhat mechanical, leading to a lack of fluidity in reading. Additionally, paragraphing is present but could be improved for better logical flow, as the transitions between ideas are not always smooth.

How to improve: To enhance the coherence and cohesion of the essay, the writer should focus on improving the use of cohesive devices to create more natural connections between sentences and paragraphs. This could involve varying the types of cohesive devices used and ensuring that each paragraph has a clear central topic that is consistently developed. Additionally, refining the paragraph structure to better delineate different aspects of the data could improve overall clarity and progression.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary relevant to the task, effectively conveying the main trends in visitor statistics. However, the use of less common vocabulary is attempted but lacks precision, as seen in phrases like "the opposite trend was true" and "witnessed a growth." There are some inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, such as "the number dropped by 40," which lacks clarity. Additionally, there are minor errors in spelling and word formation, such as "hit the trough," which may cause slight confusion but does not impede overall communication.

How to improve: To enhance the lexical resource score, the writer should aim to incorporate a wider range of vocabulary with more precise word choices and improved collocations. Avoiding vague phrases and using more sophisticated terms would also help. Furthermore, paying attention to spelling and ensuring correct word formation will contribute to clearer communication. Engaging with synonyms and varying sentence structures can also enrich the lexical quality of the essay.

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 there are some effective structures present, the essay contains several grammatical errors and awkward phrases that may hinder clarity. For instance, phrases like "the opposite trend was true" could be more clearly expressed, and there are instances of incorrect word forms and punctuation issues. However, these errors do not significantly impede communication, allowing the reader to grasp the overall meaning.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on enhancing grammatical accuracy and expanding the range of sentence structures. This can be accomplished by practicing complex sentence forms and ensuring that all sentences are error-free. Additionally, revising for clarity and coherence, particularly in transitions between ideas, would strengthen the overall quality of the essay. Regular feedback and targeted grammar exercises can also aid in improving accuracy.

Bài sửa mẫu

The table illustrates the visitor statistics for four World Heritage sites in Australia from 1996 to 2000.

In general, while the number of travelers visiting the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Blue Mountains (BM), Tasmania Wilderness (TW), and Shark Bay (SB) increased to varying extents, the opposite trend was observed for the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserve (CERR) and Macquarie Island (MI). Notably, GBR exhibited the most significant change across the entire table.

According to the table, in 1996, GBR attracted 1,670,000 travelers, which was the highest number among the six World Heritage sites. In comparison, the figures for BM and TW were 526,000 and 45,000 respectively, while SB had the lowest total at 84,000 visitors. After two years, SB experienced a growth of 18,000 people before declining to a low of 89,000 visitors in 2000. There was a dramatic increase in GBR, reaching 3,200,000 travelers in 2000, maintaining its rank as the most popular site throughout the period. Meanwhile, TW and BM showed gradual growth from 1996, with visitor numbers reaching 483,000 and 581,000 respectively in 2000.

In terms of MI, the number of visitors decreased by 40 in the first two years before rising slightly to 330 in 2000, while the figure for CERR decreased by 20,000 people every two years, from 810,000 in 1996 to 770,000 by the end of the period.