The bar chart below gives information about water disposal in one European country from 2005 to 2008.

The bar chart gives information about the amount of dispose of rubbish in European over a 4-year period starting from 2005.
Overall, it is obvious to see that the quantity of waste was dumped in landfill witnessed downward trend while the opposite was true for that of burning. Remarkably, the rate of waste was dumped at sea experienced a steadiness during the period given.
Having the first glance at the chart, the figure for dumping waste at landfill began at 1800 million tonnes in 2005, and then dropped sharply over the next one year to 1200 million tonnes in 2006. It then, decreasing relatively to about 900 million tonnes in 2007 and went down after that at 600 million tonnes.
Regarding the remaining disposal, burning and dumping at sea started at different points, at 500 and 600 million tonnes respectively before the first one increased to 600 and another one remained stable. During the next two years, whereas the quantity of waste was burned moving upward to 900 million tonnes, the figure for dumping at sea was slumming slightly at between 600 and 500 million tonnes.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"dispose of rubbish" -> "disposal of waste"
Explanation: "Dispose of" is a gerund phrase that should be treated as a noun in this context. Using "disposal of waste" makes the phrase more formal and appropriate for an academic setting.
"European" -> "Europe"
Explanation: "European" is an adjective and should be used to describe something related to Europe, whereas "Europe" is the noun form, which is more suitable here to refer to the continent.
"witnessed downward trend" -> "experienced a downward trend"
Explanation: "Witnessed" is somewhat informal and less precise in this context. "Experienced" is more appropriate and academically formal.
"the opposite was true for that of burning" -> "the trend for burning was opposite"
Explanation: The phrase "the opposite was true for that of burning" is awkward and verbose. Simplifying it to "the trend for burning was opposite" improves clarity and conciseness.
"Having the first glance" -> "At first glance"
Explanation: "Having the first glance" is grammatically incorrect. "At first glance" is the correct idiom and is more formal.
"dumped in landfill" -> "dumped in landfills"
Explanation: "Dumped in landfill" is grammatically incorrect as "landfill" is a singular noun. Using "dumped in landfills" corrects this error and aligns with the plural context.
"dropped sharply over the next one year" -> "dropped sharply over the next year"
Explanation: "The next one year" is redundant. "The next year" is sufficient and more concise.
"decreasing relatively to" -> "decreased relatively to"
Explanation: "Decreasing" is a gerund and should be in the past participle form "decreased" to agree with the past tense of the verb "dropped."
"went down after that" -> "continued to decrease"
Explanation: "Went down after that" is informal and vague. "Continued to decrease" is more precise and formal.
"dumping at sea" -> "dumping at sea"
Explanation: This is a typographical error. The word "dumping" should be repeated to maintain parallel structure with the other items listed.
"slumming slightly" -> "remained relatively stable"
Explanation: "Slumming" is incorrect and unclear in this context. "Remained relatively stable" is a clearer and more appropriate description of the trend.
"slumming slightly" -> "remained relatively stable"
Explanation: This is a correction of the previous error. "Slumming" is incorrect and should be replaced with "remained relatively stable" for clarity and formality.

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 does not present a clear overview of the main trends in the data. The essay recounts detail mechanically with no clear overview. The essay presents, but inadequately covers, key features/bullet points. There is a tendency to focus on details.

How to improve: The essay should present a clear overview of the main trends in the data. The essay should also highlight the key features of the data, such as the sharp decline in landfill waste and the steady increase in waste burned. The essay should avoid focusing on details and instead focus on presenting a clear and concise overview of the data.

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. While it attempts to describe trends in the data, the explanation is sometimes unclear and lacks logical flow. The use of cohesive devices is inadequate, leading to confusion in some areas, and there are instances of repetitive phrasing. The paragraphing is present but not always effective, which detracts from the overall coherence of the essay.
How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, the writer should focus on improving the logical flow of ideas by using clearer topic sentences and transitions between sentences and paragraphs. Additionally, varying the use of cohesive devices and ensuring they are used accurately will help to avoid repetition and mechanical phrasing. Finally, ensuring that each paragraph has a clear central topic and that the information is sequenced logically will strengthen the overall organization 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 the information from the bar chart, there are noticeable errors in word choice and sentence structure that hinder clarity. For example, phrases like "amount of dispose of rubbish" and "the rate of waste was dumped at sea experienced a steadiness" are awkward and not idiomatic. Additionally, there are errors in spelling and word formation, such as "slumming" instead of "slumping," which may cause some difficulty for the reader. Overall, the vocabulary used does not sufficiently convey precise meanings and lacks the flexibility expected at higher band levels.

How to improve: To enhance lexical resource, the writer should focus on expanding their vocabulary by incorporating more varied and precise terms related to waste disposal. Practicing the use of synonyms and learning common collocations can help improve word choice. Additionally, reviewing grammar and sentence structure will aid in producing clearer and more coherent sentences. Reading high-quality essays and articles can also provide exposure to sophisticated vocabulary and idiomatic expressions that can be applied in writing.

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 with some attempts at complex sentences. However, there are frequent grammatical errors, such as incorrect verb forms ("was dumped in landfill witnessed downward trend"), awkward phrasing ("the rate of waste was dumped at sea experienced a steadiness"), and punctuation issues. These errors occasionally hinder clarity, making it difficult for the reader to fully grasp the intended meaning. Overall, while the essay conveys some relevant information, the grammatical inaccuracies and limited range of structures prevent it from achieving a higher band score.
How to improve: To enhance the grammatical range and accuracy, the writer should focus on the following:

Variety in Sentence Structures: Incorporate a mix of simple, compound, and complex sentences to demonstrate a wider range of grammatical structures.
Error Correction: Review and correct grammatical errors, particularly in verb tenses and subject-verb agreement.
Punctuation Practice: Pay attention to punctuation rules to ensure clarity and coherence in writing.
Proofreading: After writing, take time to proofread the essay to catch and correct any mistakes that may affect the overall quality of the writing.

Bài sửa mẫu

The bar chart provides information about the amount of rubbish disposal in a European country over a four-year period starting from 2005. Overall, it is evident that the quantity of waste dumped in landfill experienced a downward trend, while the opposite was true for waste incineration. Notably, the rate of waste dumped at sea remained stable during the given period.

At first glance, the figure for landfill waste disposal began at 1,800 million tonnes in 2005 and then dropped sharply over the next year to 1,200 million tonnes in 2006. It continued to decrease relatively to about 900 million tonnes in 2007 and subsequently declined further to 600 million tonnes.

In terms of the other disposal methods, burning and dumping at sea started at different levels, at 500 and 600 million tonnes respectively. The amount of waste burned increased to 600 million tonnes, while the figure for dumping at sea remained stable. Over the next two years, the quantity of waste burned rose to 900 million tonnes, whereas the figure for dumping at sea fluctuated slightly between 600 and 500 million tonnes.