production levels of the main fuels in the UK between 1981 and 2000

The graph provides information of the output levels of the main types of fuel, including petroleum, coal, and natural gas in the UK from 1981 to 2000. Units are measured in millions.

Overall, the main generated oil was the petroleum all the whole years, while the coal was relatively the least prevalent oil in the period given.

In terms of the most popular oil – the petroleum, its trend started from about 90, rising to its on of the peaks in 1984. Then it dropped by around 100, before the trand increased again in 1996 approximetely 140. The petroleum oil remained stable until 2000. While the coal which was the least popular showed a downward trend during all years. Starting from 80, before having been relatively stable from 1986 until 1991 at 60, it decreased by around 40, hitting it the lowest pint. From 1991 the tendency started to fall gradually by about 39 untill 2000.

The natural gas showed an upward trend as opposed to the coal. Starting from around 40, the tendency remained constant by 1990. Where the coal oil decreased, the natural gas gradually rode at 100 by 2000.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"The graph provides information of the output levels" -> "The graph presents data on the output levels"
Explanation: "Presents data on" is more precise and academically appropriate than "provides information of," which is vague and less formal.
"Units are measured in millions" -> "The units are measured in millions of units"
Explanation: Adding "of units" clarifies that the units being measured are indeed units, enhancing clarity and specificity.
"the main generated oil was the petroleum all the whole years" -> "the primary source of oil was petroleum throughout the entire period"
Explanation: "Primary source of oil" is more specific than "main generated oil," and "throughout the entire period" is a more formal way to describe the duration.
"relatively the least prevalent oil" -> "the least prevalent fuel"
Explanation: "Fuel" is a more specific term than "oil" in this context, and removing "relatively" simplifies the sentence without losing meaning.
"the petroleum, its trend started from about 90" -> "petroleum, its trend began around 90"
Explanation: "Began around" is more precise and formal than "started from about," which is somewhat informal and imprecise.
"its on of the peaks" -> "its peak"
Explanation: "Its peak" is grammatically correct and more concise than "its on of the peaks."
"trand" -> "trend"
Explanation: Corrects a typographical error.
"approximetely" -> "approximately"
Explanation: Corrects a spelling error and uses the correct form "approximately."
"the petroleum oil" -> "petroleum"
Explanation: "Petroleum" is sufficient as an unmodified noun to refer to the type of oil, eliminating redundancy.
"least popular showed a downward trend" -> "least prevalent exhibited a downward trend"
Explanation: "Exhibited" is more formal and precise than "showed," and "least prevalent" is more specific than "least popular" in this context.
"hitting it the lowest pint" -> "reaching its lowest point"
Explanation: "Reaching its lowest point" is grammatically correct and more formal than "hitting it the lowest pint," which is incorrect and informal.
"untill" -> "until"
Explanation: Corrects a spelling error.
"the tendency started to fall gradually by about 39" -> "the trend continued to decline by approximately 39"
Explanation: "Continued to decline" is more precise and formal than "started to fall," and "approximately" is preferred over "about" for academic writing.
"rode at 100" -> "rose to 100"
Explanation: "Rose to" is the correct verb form for increasing to a level, whereas "rode" is incorrect in this context.

These changes enhance the formal tone and precision of the text, aligning it more closely with academic writing standards.

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 provides a general overview of the trends in the production levels of the main fuels in the UK between 1981 and 2000, but it does not provide a clear overview of the main trends, differences, or stages. The essay also presents and adequately highlights key features/bullet points, but the details are sometimes irrelevant, inappropriate, or inaccurate. For example, the essay states that "the main generated oil was the petroleum all the whole years," which is not accurate. The essay also uses the term "oil" to refer to all three fuels, which is confusing.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing a clearer overview of the main trends, differences, or stages in the production levels of the main fuels. The essay could also be improved by using more accurate and appropriate language. For example, the essay could use the term "fuel" instead of "oil" to refer to all three fuels. The essay could also be improved by providing more specific details about the trends in the production levels of each fuel. For example, the essay could state that the production of petroleum increased from 1981 to 1984, then decreased from 1984 to 1996, and then increased again from 1996 to 2000. The essay could also state that the production of coal decreased from 1981 to 2000, and that the production of natural gas increased from 1981 to 2000.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay presents information with some organization, but there is a lack of overall progression in the argument. While it attempts to describe trends in fuel production, the sequencing of ideas is not always clear, leading to confusion. The use of cohesive devices is inadequate and at times inaccurate, which affects the clarity of the relationships between ideas. For example, phrases like "the most popular oil – the petroleum" and "the coal which was the least popular" are somewhat awkward and could be expressed more clearly. Additionally, there are issues with paragraphing, as the essay does not effectively separate ideas into distinct paragraphs, making it harder for the reader to follow the progression of information.

How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, the writer should focus on clearer paragraphing, ensuring that each paragraph has a distinct central topic. Using a wider range of cohesive devices correctly can also help to clarify relationships between ideas. Additionally, improving the clarity of language and avoiding awkward phrasing will contribute to a more logical flow of information. Lastly, ensuring that trends are described in a more structured manner 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 trends in fuel production, the use of terms such as "the main generated oil" and "the least prevalent oil" indicates a lack of precision and appropriateness in word choice. There are noticeable errors in spelling ("approximetely," "trand," "pint," "untill") and word formation, which may cause some difficulty for the reader. Additionally, the repetitive use of basic vocabulary and phrases detracts from the overall quality of the lexical resource.

How to improve: To enhance the lexical resource score, the writer should focus on expanding their vocabulary by incorporating more varied and precise terms related to the topic. Practicing the use of synonyms and less common lexical items can help convey more nuanced meanings. Additionally, careful proofreading to correct spelling and word formation errors will improve clarity and professionalism in the writing. Engaging with high-quality academic texts can also provide exposure to sophisticated vocabulary and phrasing.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a limited range of grammatical structures, primarily using simple sentences with some attempts at complex sentences. However, the accuracy of these structures is inconsistent. There are frequent grammatical errors, such as incorrect verb forms ("its on of the peaks"), misuse of articles ("the coal was relatively the least prevalent oil"), and punctuation issues ("hitting it the lowest pint"). These errors can cause some difficulty for the reader in understanding the intended meaning. Overall, while the essay attempts to convey information about fuel production levels, the grammatical inaccuracies hinder effective communication.

How to improve: To improve the score, the writer should focus on expanding their range of sentence structures by incorporating more complex sentences and ensuring grammatical accuracy. Paying attention to subject-verb agreement, correct verb forms, and proper punctuation will enhance clarity. Additionally, proofreading the essay for common errors and improving vocabulary usage will contribute to a more polished and coherent response.

Bài sửa mẫu

The graph provides information on the output levels of the main types of fuel, including petroleum, coal, and natural gas, in the UK from 1981 to 2000. Units are measured in millions.

Overall, petroleum was the most produced fuel throughout the entire period, while coal was the least prevalent fuel during these years.

In terms of the most popular fuel, petroleum’s trend started at about 90 million units, rising to one of its peaks in 1984. It then dropped by around 100 million units before increasing again to approximately 140 million units in 1996. The production of petroleum remained stable until 2000. In contrast, coal, which was the least popular fuel, showed a downward trend throughout the entire period. Starting from 80 million units, coal production remained relatively stable from 1986 until 1991 at 60 million units, before decreasing by around 40 million units, reaching its lowest point. From 1991, the trend continued to decline gradually by about 39 million units until 2000.

Natural gas exhibited an upward trend, in contrast to coal. Starting from around 40 million units, production remained constant until 1990. While coal production decreased, natural gas gradually rose to 100 million units by 2000.