The first chart below shows information about the consumers of water in Australia in 2004. The second chart gives details of residential water use in Australia in the same year. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The first chart below shows information about the consumers of water in Australia in
2004. The second chart gives details of residential water use in Australia in the same year.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The pie chart describes the amount of water used by consumers in many areas and the bar chart depicts the percentage of housing water in Australia in 2004.
Overall, Water consumption in each field has different levels of percent remarkably, and the domestic water was differential usage rather big in houses.
To begin with, people optimized water in governmental fields only occupied 6%, but others were still smaller than government doubly. Business and industrial areas seemed to consume a little more than two groups previously accounting for 10% and 11% that correspond with each field and those were differences 1%. Next, residential usage was the highest in all works, with 17% accounting for more a half the amount of water. However, it was divided into two groups that included apartments and houses. The majority of consumption was houses with 53%, while apartments only had 17.
Secondly, the most used in-house water for the garden with 28%.And then the bathroom was only 1% lower than. Besides toilet and kitchen were different differential 5% when company between 50% and 10%.Finally, washing clothes again, the number of percents that. That was a doubled Kitchen.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"the amount of water used by consumers in many areas" -> "the volume of water consumed by residents across various regions"
Explanation: "Volume" is a more precise term than "amount," and "residents" is more specific than "consumers." "Across various regions" enhances clarity and formality compared to "in many areas."
"the percentage of housing water in Australia in 2004" -> "the proportion of residential water usage in Australia in 2004"
Explanation: "Proportion" is a more formal term than "percentage," and "residential water usage" is clearer than "housing water," improving specificity.
"different levels of percent remarkably" -> "significantly varying percentages"
Explanation: "Significantly varying" is more precise and formal than "different levels of percent remarkably," which is vague and awkward.
"the domestic water was differential usage rather big in houses" -> "domestic water usage was notably higher in residential homes"
Explanation: "Notably higher" is clearer and more formal than "differential usage rather big," which is awkward and unclear.
"people optimized water in governmental fields only occupied 6%" -> "water usage in governmental sectors constituted only 6%"
Explanation: "Constituted" is more formal and precise than "occupied," and "governmental sectors" is clearer than "governmental fields."
"but others were still smaller than government doubly" -> "while other sectors were less than half of the governmental usage"
Explanation: "Less than half" is clearer than "smaller than government doubly," which is vague and informal.
"seemed to consume a little more than two groups previously" -> "appeared to consume slightly more than the two previously mentioned groups"
Explanation: "Appeared" is more formal than "seemed," and "slightly more" is more precise than "a little more."
"accounting for 10% and 11% that correspond with each field and those were differences 1%" -> "accounting for 10% and 11%, respectively, indicating a difference of 1%"
Explanation: "Respectively" clarifies the relationship between the percentages, and "indicating" is more formal than "that correspond with."
"the highest in all works" -> "the highest among all categories"
Explanation: "Among all categories" is more precise and formal than "in all works," which is vague.
"with 17% accounting for more a half the amount of water" -> "with 17% representing more than half of the total water consumption"
Explanation: "Representing" is more precise than "accounting for," and "more than half of the total water consumption" is clearer than "more a half the amount of water."
"However, it was divided into two groups that included apartments and houses" -> "However, it was categorized into two groups: apartments and houses"
Explanation: "Categorized" is more formal than "divided," and using a colon clarifies the list that follows.
"the most used in-house water for the garden with 28%" -> "the most significant use of household water was for gardening, accounting for 28%"
Explanation: "Most significant use" is clearer and more formal than "the most used in-house water," and "accounting for" maintains clarity.
"And then the bathroom was only 1% lower than" -> "Additionally, bathroom usage was only 1% lower than that of gardening"
Explanation: "Additionally" is more formal than "And then," and specifying "that of gardening" clarifies the comparison.
"Besides toilet and kitchen were different differential 5% when company between 50% and 10%" -> "Furthermore, toilet and kitchen usage differed by 5%, with the former at 50% and the latter at 10%"
Explanation: "Furthermore" is more formal than "Besides," and the revised structure improves clarity and precision.
"Finally, washing clothes again, the number of percents that. That was a doubled Kitchen." -> "Finally, laundry usage accounted for a percentage that was double that of kitchen usage."
Explanation: This revision clarifies the meaning and improves grammatical structure, enhancing overall readability.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 4

Band Score: 4

Explanation: The essay attempts to address the task but does not cover all key features/bullet points. The essay does not provide a clear overview of the main features of the charts. The essay also confuses key features/bullet points with detail. For example, the essay states that "the majority of consumption was houses with 53%, while apartments only had 17%" but does not provide any further information about the differences between the two types of residential water use.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing a clearer overview of the main features of the charts. The essay should also focus on highlighting the key features/bullet points of the charts, rather than providing irrelevant details. The essay should also be more accurate in its presentation of the data. For example, the essay states that "the bathroom was only 1% lower than" the garden, but the chart shows that the bathroom used 27% of water, while the garden used 28%.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay presents some organization of information, but it lacks overall progression and clarity. While it attempts to compare data from the pie and bar charts, the connections between ideas are often unclear, leading to confusion. The use of cohesive devices is inconsistent, with some phrases being repetitive or inaccurately used. Paragraphing is attempted but not always logical, which detracts from the overall coherence of the response.

How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, the writer should focus on clearly structuring the essay with distinct paragraphs that each present a single idea. Using a wider range of cohesive devices accurately will help in linking ideas more effectively. Additionally, ensuring that comparisons are clearly articulated and that each paragraph has a clear central topic will improve the overall clarity and flow 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 convey information about water consumption, the use of vocabulary is repetitive and lacks precision. There are noticeable errors in word choice, such as "differential usage" and "the most used in-house water for the garden," which may cause some difficulty for the reader. Additionally, spelling and grammatical issues, such as "percents that" and "company between," further detract from clarity. Overall, the vocabulary used does not effectively convey the intended meaning with the necessary accuracy and sophistication.

How to improve: To enhance the Lexical Resource score, the writer should focus on expanding their vocabulary and using more varied and precise language. Incorporating less common lexical items and ensuring correct collocations would also improve clarity. Additionally, proofreading for spelling and grammatical errors can help in achieving greater accuracy in word formation. Engaging with a wider range of texts can aid in developing a more sophisticated vocabulary.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a limited range of grammatical structures and attempts to use complex sentences; however, these attempts are often inaccurate. There are frequent grammatical errors, particularly with subject-verb agreement and sentence structure, which can cause some difficulty for the reader. While the writer attempts to convey information clearly, the errors in grammar and punctuation detract from the overall clarity and coherence of the essay.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on the following areas:

Variety of Sentence Structures: Incorporate a wider range of complex sentences and ensure they are used accurately.
Error Reduction: Proofread the essay to identify and correct grammatical errors, especially those related to subject-verb agreement and punctuation.
Clarity and Coherence: Work on organizing ideas more logically and clearly to enhance the overall flow of the essay. Using linking words and phrases can help improve coherence.
Practice: Regularly practice writing essays and seek feedback to identify and address specific grammatical weaknesses.

Bài sửa mẫu

The pie chart describes the amount of water used by consumers in various sectors, while the bar chart illustrates the percentage of residential water use in Australia in 2004. Overall, water consumption across different sectors varied significantly, with domestic water usage being notably higher in households.

To begin with, water usage in government sectors accounted for only 6%, which was significantly lower than the other sectors. Business and industrial areas consumed slightly more, at 10% and 11%, respectively, showing a difference of 1% between them. In contrast, residential water usage was the highest among all sectors, representing 17% of total consumption, which was more than half of the total water used. This residential usage was further divided into two categories: houses and apartments. The majority of consumption came from houses, which accounted for 53%, while apartments consumed only 17%.

Secondly, the most significant portion of household water was used for gardening, at 28%. The bathroom usage was just 1% lower than this figure. Additionally, water usage in the toilet and kitchen showed a notable difference, with 50% and 10%, respectively. Finally, the percentage of water used for washing clothes was double that of the kitchen.