The bar chart details the proportion of waste in four European countries and the way they handle it in four ways

The bar chart details the proportion of waste in four European countries and the way they handle it in four ways (burnt, used as chemicals, recycled and landfilled).
Overall, it is clear that while the method of landfilling in the Netherlands was not preferred by the government, the three other countries that took up the majority of resident’s methods. Additionally, while people in the Netherlands recycle a lot of garbage, the remaining three countries choose to recycle much less than the Netherlands.
In terms of landfills, the UK accounted for the largest proportion of the total, at about 66%. Meanwhile, the Netherlands occupy the lowest with nearby 8%, in Italy and Spain it is also the highest percentage in both countries but not of the total, at 40%. The method that is the most in the Netherlands and also the least in Spain is recycled, in the Netherlands it accounted for an impressive number, at approximately 80%, and in Spain it was just about 10%.
Regarding the method used as chemicals, it ranked second in the Netherlands and also in the UK at around 14% and 16% respectively. The last way of dealing with waste in four countries is burnt, and in the UK and the Netherlands people do not like this method, so it only accounts for about 4% and 10% respectively. By contrast, in Italy and Spain it accounts for the second most, at approximately 22% and 30% respectively.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"the way they handle it in four ways" -> "the methods they employ for waste management"
Explanation: "The way they handle it in four ways" is vague and informal. "The methods they employ for waste management" is more precise and aligns with formal academic language.
"the majority of resident’s methods" -> "the majority of residents’ waste management methods"
Explanation: "Resident’s methods" is incorrect due to the misuse of the possessive form. "Residents’ waste management methods" clarifies that the methods belong to multiple residents and specifies the context.
"the remaining three countries choose to recycle much less than the Netherlands" -> "the other three countries recycle significantly less than the Netherlands"
Explanation: "Choose to recycle much less" is informal and vague. "Recycle significantly less" is more precise and maintains an academic tone.
"the lowest with nearby 8%" -> "the lowest at approximately 8%"
Explanation: "Nearby" is informal and not appropriate in this context. "At approximately" is more precise and fits the academic style.
"in Italy and Spain it is also the highest percentage in both countries but not of the total" -> "Italy and Spain also exhibit high percentages, though not of the total"
Explanation: The original phrasing is awkward and unclear. The revised version is more concise and clearly conveys the intended meaning.
"the method that is the most in the Netherlands and also the least in Spain is recycled" -> "the most prevalent method in the Netherlands and the least prevalent in Spain is recycling"
Explanation: "The method that is the most" is awkwardly phrased. "The most prevalent method" is clearer and more formal, and "recycling" should be used as a noun for consistency.
"it accounted for an impressive number" -> "it constituted a substantial proportion"
Explanation: "An impressive number" is subjective and informal. "A substantial proportion" is more objective and suitable for academic writing.
"just about 10%" -> "approximately 10%"
Explanation: "Just about" is informal. "Approximately" is more precise and appropriate for academic contexts.
"the method used as chemicals" -> "the method involving chemical treatment"
Explanation: "Used as chemicals" is vague and unclear. "Involving chemical treatment" specifies the process more accurately.
"the last way of dealing with waste in four countries is burnt" -> "the final method of waste management among the four countries is incineration"
Explanation: "The last way of dealing with waste" is informal and vague. "The final method of waste management" is more formal, and "incineration" is the correct term for burning waste.
"people do not like this method" -> "this method is less favored"
Explanation: "People do not like this method" is informal and subjective. "This method is less favored" maintains a neutral tone suitable for academic writing.
"it accounts for the second most" -> "it accounts for the second highest proportion"
Explanation: "The second most" is vague. "The second highest proportion" is more precise and aligns with academic language.
"approximately 22% and 30% respectively" -> "approximately 22% and 30%, respectively"
Explanation: The placement of "respectively" should follow the percentages for clarity and proper punctuation.

These changes enhance the precision, clarity, and formality of the essay, making it more suitable for an academic audience.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5

Explanation: The essay provides a general overview of the information presented in the bar chart. It identifies the main trends and makes some comparisons between the four countries. However, the essay does not fully cover all the key features of the chart. For example, it does not mention that the Netherlands has the highest percentage of waste recycled, while the UK has the lowest.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing a more detailed overview of the information presented in the bar chart. The writer should also make sure to cover all the key features of the chart, including the highest and lowest percentages for each method of waste disposal. The writer should also avoid making assumptions or drawing conclusions that are not supported by the data. For example, the statement that "people in the Netherlands recycle a lot of garbage" is not supported by the data. The data only shows that the Netherlands has the highest percentage of waste recycled, not that people in the Netherlands recycle more than people in other countries.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay arranges information and ideas coherently, with a clear overall progression from the introduction to the body paragraphs. However, while it uses cohesive devices effectively, there are instances where cohesion between sentences is somewhat mechanical, and referencing could be clearer. The paragraphing is present but not always logical, as some ideas could be better grouped to enhance clarity.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the essay could benefit from more varied and sophisticated cohesive devices to improve the flow between sentences. Additionally, ensuring that each paragraph focuses on a single clear topic and logically progresses from one idea to the next would enhance coherence. Improving the clarity of referencing (e.g., using synonyms or pronouns effectively) would also contribute to a more cohesive essay.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary appropriate for the task, using terms related to waste management such as "landfilling," "recycled," and "burnt." However, there are instances of inaccuracy and awkward phrasing, such as "the three other countries that took up the majority of resident’s methods," which could be clearer. The use of less common vocabulary is attempted, but with some inaccuracies, such as "used as chemicals," which may confuse readers. There are also errors in word formation and phrasing that, while not severely impeding communication, do detract from the overall clarity and sophistication of the essay.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on expanding their vocabulary range and using more precise language. Additionally, improving the accuracy of word choice and collocation will enhance clarity. The writer should also aim to reduce errors in spelling and word formation. Practicing more complex sentence structures and varying vocabulary usage can contribute to a more sophisticated expression of ideas.

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. There are several grammatical errors and issues with punctuation that occasionally hinder clarity, such as awkward phrasing and sentence structure. For example, phrases like "the three other countries that took up the majority of resident’s methods" are unclear and could be better articulated. Additionally, the use of "the highest percentage in both countries but not of the total" is confusing and lacks precision. While the overall message is communicated, the errors do affect the reader’s understanding at times.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on enhancing grammatical accuracy and increasing the variety of sentence structures. This can be done by proofreading for errors, refining awkward phrases, and ensuring that complex sentences are constructed correctly. Additionally, practicing the use of subordinate clauses and ensuring that punctuation is consistently correct will help improve clarity and coherence in the writing.

Bài sửa mẫu

The bar chart details the proportion of waste in four European countries and the methods they use to handle it in four ways: burnt, used as chemicals, recycled, and landfilled.

Overall, it is clear that while landfilling was not the preferred method in the Netherlands, the other three countries predominantly utilized this approach. Additionally, although residents in the Netherlands recycle a significant amount of waste, the remaining three countries recycle considerably less.

In terms of landfilling, the UK accounted for the largest proportion at approximately 66%. Meanwhile, the Netherlands had the lowest percentage, at around 8%. Italy and Spain also exhibited high landfill rates, both reaching about 40%, but not as high as the UK. The recycling method was the most prevalent in the Netherlands, accounting for an impressive 80%, whereas in Spain, it was only about 10%.

Regarding the use of waste as chemicals, this method ranked second in both the Netherlands and the UK, at around 14% and 16%, respectively. The method of burning waste was the least favored in the UK and the Netherlands, accounting for only about 4% and 10%, respectively. In contrast, in Italy and Spain, burning waste was the second most common method, comprising approximately 22% and 30%, respectively.