The bar chart below shows the three main causes of land damage in four different areas. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant.Write at least 150 words

The bar chart illustrates the extent of land damaged by three major determinants, including deforestation, animal farming, and farming across four particular regions: Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia.
Overall, it is evident that Africa and Asia experience the most significant land degradation, while the other areas are less damaged. In addition, livestock farming is typically the greatest contributor to land destruction in four areas.
In details, Asia endures the highest level of degradation from tree-cutting, followed by Africa with approximately 370 million hectares. Conversely, Australia and Europe suffer considerably less damage from deforestation, with about 100 million hectares affected in each region.
Regarding the remaining features, animal husbanding is the primary factor of land degradation across four regions, with a staggering 1200 million hectares in total. This practice causes the most severe land destruction in Africa, while Europe witnesses the least. In terms of cultivation, roughly 420 million hectares of land are destroyed in Asia, greatly exceeding Africa by 120 million hectares. In contrast , farming just impact around 50 million hectares of land in Australia and nearly 90 million hectares of land in Europe.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"The bar chart illustrates" -> "The bar chart depicts"
Explanation: "Depicts" is a more precise and formal term than "illustrates" in academic contexts, particularly when referring to visual representations of data.
"land damaged by" -> "land degradation caused by"
Explanation: "Land degradation caused by" is a more precise and academically appropriate term than "land damaged by," which is somewhat vague and informal.
"three major determinants" -> "three primary factors"
Explanation: "Primary factors" is more specific and formal than "major determinants," which can be somewhat ambiguous.
"across four particular regions" -> "in four specific regions"
Explanation: "In four specific regions" is more concise and formal than "across four particular regions," which sounds slightly informal.
"it is evident that" -> "it is clear that"
Explanation: "It is clear that" is a more formal expression than "it is evident that," which can be seen as slightly colloquial.
"typically the greatest contributor" -> "primarily the leading cause"
Explanation: "Primarily the leading cause" is more precise and formal than "typically the greatest contributor," which is less specific and slightly informal.
"In details" -> "In detail"
Explanation: "In detail" is the correct phrase for providing further information, whereas "In details" is grammatically incorrect.
"endures the highest level of degradation" -> "suffers the highest level of degradation"
Explanation: "Suffers" is a more appropriate verb in this context, indicating a negative impact, whereas "endures" can imply a more neutral or passive acceptance.
"with about 100 million hectares affected" -> "with approximately 100 million hectares affected"
Explanation: "Approximately" is a more precise and formal quantifier than "about," which is less precise.
"Regarding the remaining features" -> "Regarding the remaining aspects"
Explanation: "Aspects" is a more formal term than "features" in this context, aligning better with academic language.
"animal husbanding" -> "livestock farming"
Explanation: "Livestock farming" is a more commonly used and precise term in academic and formal contexts than "animal husbanding," which is less standard.
"causes the most severe land destruction" -> "results in the most severe land degradation"
Explanation: "Results in" is more formal and precise than "causes," and "degradation" is the correct term for the context of land quality.
"In terms of cultivation" -> "In terms of agricultural practices"
Explanation: "Agricultural practices" is a more specific and formal term than "cultivation," which is somewhat vague.
"just impact" -> "only affects"
Explanation: "Only affects" is a more formal and precise way to express limited impact compared to "just impact," which is informal and less specific.
"nearly 90 million hectares of land" -> "approximately 90 million hectares of land"
Explanation: "Approximately" is more appropriate than "nearly" in formal writing, as it provides a more precise quantification.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7

Explanation: The essay covers all the requirements of the task and presents a clear overview of the main trends. The essay clearly presents and highlights key features/bullet points, but could be more fully extended. For example, the essay could have provided more specific comparisons between the regions.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more specific comparisons between the regions. For example, the essay could state that "Asia experiences the highest level of land degradation from tree-cutting, followed by Africa, while Australia and Europe suffer considerably less damage from deforestation." The essay could also provide more specific details about the impact of each factor on land degradation. For example, the essay could state that "Livestock farming is the primary factor of land degradation across four regions, with a staggering 1200 million hectares in total. This practice causes the most severe land destruction in Africa, while Europe witnesses the least."

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 effectively uses cohesive devices, such as "overall," "in addition," and "regarding," to connect ideas. However, there are instances where cohesion within sentences is somewhat mechanical, and referencing could be clearer. For example, the phrase "the remaining features" could be better defined to enhance clarity. The paragraphing is present but could be improved for better logical flow, particularly in separating different aspects of the data.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the essay could benefit from clearer referencing and more varied cohesive devices to enhance the flow of ideas. Additionally, improving paragraph structure to clearly delineate different points or comparisons would strengthen coherence. Ensuring that each paragraph has a clear central topic and logically progresses from one idea to the next will also help in achieving a higher score.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a sufficient range of vocabulary that allows for flexibility and precision in conveying the main features of the bar chart. The use of terms such as "land degradation," "deforestation," and "animal husbanding" indicates an awareness of less common lexical items. However, there are occasional inaccuracies in word choice, such as "animal husbanding" instead of "animal farming," and minor errors in collocation, such as "farming just impact" instead of "farming only impacts." The spelling and word formation are generally accurate, but there are some errors that do not impede communication.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the essay could benefit from a more sophisticated range of vocabulary and improved accuracy in word choice and collocation. Additionally, reducing the frequency of minor errors in spelling and grammar would enhance clarity. Incorporating more varied sentence structures and linking phrases could also improve the overall fluency and coherence 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 a Band 6. While there is an attempt to use a variety of structures, some grammatical errors and punctuation mistakes are present, such as "animal husbanding" instead of "animal husbandry" and issues with comma placement. These errors do not significantly hinder communication, but they do indicate a lack of full control over grammatical accuracy. The overall clarity of the information presented is maintained, but the frequency of errors suggests that the essay does not reach a higher band.

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

Increase grammatical accuracy: Review and correct grammatical errors, particularly in terms of word choice and punctuation.
Enhance sentence variety: Incorporate a wider range of complex sentence structures to demonstrate flexibility.
Proofread: Take time to revise the essay for minor slips and errors that can detract from the overall quality.
Use precise vocabulary: Ensure that terminology is accurate and appropriate for the context, such as using "animal husbandry" instead of "animal husbanding."

Bài sửa mẫu

The bar chart illustrates the extent of land damage caused by three major factors: deforestation, animal farming, and crop cultivation across four specific regions: Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia.

Overall, it is evident that Africa and Asia experience the most significant land degradation, while the other regions are less affected. Additionally, livestock farming is typically the greatest contributor to land destruction in all four areas.

In detail, Asia endures the highest level of degradation from deforestation, followed by Africa, which suffers approximately 370 million hectares of damage. Conversely, Australia and Europe experience considerably less damage from tree-cutting, with about 100 million hectares affected in each region.

Regarding the other factors, animal husbandry is the primary cause of land degradation across all four regions, with a staggering total of 1,200 million hectares impacted. This practice leads to the most severe land destruction in Africa, while Europe witnesses the least. In terms of crop cultivation, roughly 420 million hectares of land are destroyed in Asia, greatly exceeding Africa by 120 million hectares. In contrast, farming affects only around 50 million hectares in Australia and nearly 90 million hectares in Europe.