The pie charts above show a comparison of kinds of energy production in a European country in 1995 and 2005.

The pie charts display the percentages of five different energy production in the United State in 1995, and compared to the figures in 2005.

Overall, there was a slight upward trend on the proportion of all energy types, except the figure for Petro over the time period.

In 1995, Gas, Coal and Petro accounted for the largest percentages of energy generations. However, in 2005, the figure for Petro fell steadily with roughly 10%, while the other two energies still slowly went up to around 30%.

Although nuclear and other energies were the least proportions of total power productions, with 6,40% and 4,9% respectively, the growth rate of them surpassed fossil fuels, rising nearly double over the period of five years.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"the percentages of five different energy production" -> "the percentages of five different energy sources"
Explanation: "Energy production" is vague and does not accurately convey that the focus is on the sources of energy. "Energy sources" is more precise and aligns with academic terminology.
"in the United State" -> "in the United States"
Explanation: "United State" is a typographical error; the correct term is "United States," which is the official name of the country.
"compared to the figures in 2005" -> "in comparison to the figures for 2005"
Explanation: "In comparison to" is a more formal phrase that enhances the academic tone of the writing, making it clearer that a comparison is being made.
"there was a slight upward trend on the proportion" -> "there was a slight upward trend in the proportion"
Explanation: "In" is the correct preposition to use with "trend," improving grammatical accuracy.
"the figure for Petro fell steadily with roughly 10%" -> "the proportion of Petro decreased steadily to approximately 10%"
Explanation: "Proportion" is more precise than "figure," and "decreased" is a more formal term than "fell." "Approximately" is also more academically appropriate than "roughly."
"the other two energies still slowly went up to around 30%" -> "the other two energy sources gradually increased to approximately 30%"
Explanation: "Gradually increased" is a more formal and precise expression than "slowly went up." "Energy sources" maintains consistency with earlier terminology.
"the least proportions of total power productions" -> "the smallest proportions of total energy production"
Explanation: "Smallest" is a more precise term than "least," and "energy production" is more appropriate than "power productions," which is less commonly used in academic contexts.
"with 6,40% and 4,9% respectively" -> "at 6.40% and 4.90%, respectively"
Explanation: The use of a period instead of a comma for decimal points is standard in academic writing, improving clarity and consistency.
"the growth rate of them surpassed fossil fuels" -> "their growth rates surpassed those of fossil fuels"
Explanation: "Their growth rates" is more concise and avoids the awkward phrasing "the growth rate of them." "Those of fossil fuels" clarifies the comparison.
"rising nearly double over the period of five years" -> "increasing nearly twofold over the five-year period"
Explanation: "Increasing" is more formal than "rising," and "twofold" is a precise term that conveys the intended meaning more effectively than "nearly double." The phrase "the five-year period" is clearer and more formal than "over the period of five years."

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5

Explanation: The essay provides a general overview of the data, but it does not fully address all the requirements of the task. The essay does not present a clear overview of the main trends, differences, or stages. The essay also does not adequately cover all the key features/bullet points. For example, the essay does not mention the specific percentage changes for each energy type.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing a more detailed overview of the data, including specific percentage changes for each energy type. The essay could also be improved by highlighting the key features/bullet points more clearly. For example, the essay could use a table to present the data in a more organized way. The essay should also be more accurate in its description of the data. For example, the essay states that the figure for Petro fell steadily with roughly 10%, but the actual figure is 10.10%.

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 compare the data from 1995 and 2005, the transitions between ideas are not always clear, leading to confusion. The use of cohesive devices is inadequate and at times inaccurate, such as the phrase "the figure for Petro fell steadily with roughly 10%," which lacks clarity. Additionally, the paragraphing is present but not always logical, as the ideas do not flow smoothly from one to the next.

How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, the writer should focus on clearly structuring the essay with logical paragraphing that follows a clear progression of ideas. Using a wider range of cohesive devices appropriately will help improve the flow of information. Additionally, ensuring that each paragraph presents a clear central topic and that transitions between ideas are smooth will strengthen the overall coherence of the essay.

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 describe the data presented in the pie charts, the use of terms such as "Petro," "Gas," and "Coal" is somewhat appropriate, but the overall vocabulary lacks variety and sophistication. There are noticeable errors in spelling (e.g., "generations" instead of "generation," "6,40%" instead of "6.40%") and word formation, which may cause difficulty for the reader. The phrasing is basic, and there is repetition of terms without effective synonyms or varied expressions.

How to improve: To enhance the Lexical Resource score, the writer should aim to expand their vocabulary by incorporating more varied and precise terms related to energy production. Additionally, they should focus on correct spelling and word formation, ensuring that numerical data is presented accurately. Using synonyms and more complex sentence structures can also improve the overall quality of the writing. Engaging with a wider range of vocabulary through reading and practice will help in achieving a higher band score.

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. While there are attempts at complex sentences, they are not consistently accurate, leading to frequent grammatical errors. For instance, phrases like "the percentages of five different energy production" and "the figure for Petro fell steadily with roughly 10%" contain awkward constructions and inaccuracies. Additionally, punctuation errors, such as the use of a comma before "and compared to the figures in 2005," detract from clarity. Overall, while the essay conveys the main ideas, the grammatical inaccuracies can cause some difficulty for the reader.

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 fluency and coherence.
Review Grammar Rules: Pay attention to subject-verb agreement and the correct use of articles and prepositions to minimize errors.
Practice Punctuation: Ensure correct punctuation usage to enhance readability and clarity.
Seek Feedback: Engage in peer review or use writing tools to identify and correct errors before finalizing the essay.

Bài sửa mẫu

The pie charts display the percentages of five different types of energy production in the United States in 1995, compared to the figures in 2005.

Overall, there was a slight upward trend in the proportion of all energy types, except for the figure for Petro over the time period.

In 1995, Gas, Coal, and Petro accounted for the largest percentages of energy generation. However, in 2005, the figure for Petro fell steadily to roughly 10%, while the other two energy sources gradually increased to around 30%.

Although Nuclear and Other energies represented the smallest proportions of total power production, at 6.4% and 4.9% respectively, their growth rates surpassed those of fossil fuels, rising nearly double over the five-year period.