the bar charts

the bar charts

The two pie charts illustrate the proportion of several category of energy including gas, coal, petrol, nuclear and others, which were produced in French during 1995 and 2005.

Overall, coal and gas remained the top two most popular sources of power produced whereas nuclear and other energy accounted for the lowest percentage of energy produced in France. Petrol was the only sort of energy that decreased during the 10-year period

Coal was the most popular type of energy in France, which accounted for approximately 29.8% in 1995 and increased slightly throughout the years, reaching about 31% of total energy production in 2005. The same trend applied to the percentage of gas produced as it increased almost 0.6%, rising from 29.63% during 1995 to slightly over 30.3% in 2005. These two types of energy accounted for roughly 60% of total energy production of France.

During 1995, the third most popular type of energy was petrol, which took up about 29.3% of the whole production. However, throughout 10 years, petrol was the only type of energy that was produced less as its proportion dropped by 10% (19.55%) in 2005. On the other hand, there were significant increases in the rates of nuclear energy as well as other types as there was a significant growth of 4%, marking the percentage of these sources of energy at 10.1% and 9.1% respectively.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

1. "the proportion of several category of energy" -> "the proportion of several categories of energy"
   Explanation: The word "category" should be pluralized to "categories" to agree with "several," indicating multiple types of energy.

2. "which were produced in French" -> "which were produced in France"
   Explanation: "French" refers to the language, while "France" is the correct term for the country where the energy was produced.

3. "the top two most popular sources of power produced" -> "the two most prevalent sources of energy produced"
   Explanation: "Prevalent" is a more precise term than "popular" in an academic context, as it refers to the frequency or commonality of sources rather than subjective popularity.

4. "the only sort of energy that decreased" -> "the only type of energy that experienced a decrease"
   Explanation: "Type" is more formal than "sort," and "experienced a decrease" is a more precise and academic way to express the change.

5. "which accounted for approximately 29.8% in 1995" -> "which accounted for approximately 29.8% of total energy production in 1995"
   Explanation: Adding "of total energy production" clarifies what the percentage refers to, enhancing the precision of the statement.

6. "increased slightly throughout the years" -> "increased slightly over the period"
   Explanation: "Over the period" is more formal and specific than "throughout the years," which can be considered vague.

7. "the same trend applied to the percentage of gas produced" -> "a similar trend was observed in the percentage of gas produced"
   Explanation: "A similar trend was observed" is more formal and precise than "the same trend applied," improving clarity.

8. "the third most popular type of energy" -> "the third most prevalent type of energy"
   Explanation: Again, "prevalent" is a more suitable term in an academic context than "popular," which carries a subjective connotation.

9. "took up about 29.3% of the whole production" -> "accounted for approximately 29.3% of total production"
   Explanation: "Accounted for" is a more precise and formal expression than "took up," and "total production" is clearer than "the whole production."

10. "petrol was the only type of energy that was produced less" -> "petrol was the only type of energy that experienced a reduction in production"
    Explanation: "Experienced a reduction in production" is more formal and precise than "was produced less," enhancing clarity and academic tone.

11. "there were significant increases in the rates of nuclear energy as well as other types" -> "there were significant increases in the production levels of nuclear energy and other sources"
    Explanation: "Production levels" is more specific than "rates," and "and other sources" is clearer than "as well as other types."

12. "there was a significant growth of 4%" -> "there was a notable increase of 4%"
    Explanation: "Notable increase" is more formal and precise than "significant growth," which can be vague.

13. "marking the percentage of these sources of energy at 10.1% and 9.1% respectively" -> "resulting in the percentages of these energy sources being 10.1% and 9.1%, respectively"
    Explanation: "Resulting in the percentages" is clearer and more formal than "marking the percentage," improving the academic tone.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7

Explanation: The essay provides a clear overview of the main trends in energy production in France between 1995 and 2005. It accurately identifies the two most popular sources of energy (coal and gas) and highlights the significant decrease in petrol production. The essay also presents and highlights key features, such as the increase in nuclear and other energy sources. However, the essay could be more fully extended by providing more detailed analysis of the changes in each energy source.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more detailed analysis of the changes in each energy source. For example, the essay could discuss the reasons for the increase in nuclear and other energy sources, or the reasons for the decrease in petrol production. The essay could also provide more specific data to support its claims. For example, instead of simply stating that coal production increased slightly, the essay could provide the exact percentage increase.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay arranges information and ideas coherently, presenting a clear overall progression. However, while cohesive devices are used effectively, there are instances where cohesion between sentences could be improved, leading to some mechanical flow. The paragraphing is present but not always logical, as the transitions between ideas could be smoother to enhance clarity.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on enhancing the logical flow between sentences and paragraphs. This can be done by using a wider variety of cohesive devices and ensuring that each paragraph clearly relates to the central topic. Additionally, improving the clarity of referencing and substitution within the text will help create a more cohesive and coherent essay.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary suitable for the task. It attempts to use less common vocabulary, such as "proportion," "accounted for," and "significant increases," but there are instances of inaccuracy in word choice and phrasing. For example, the phrase "the only sort of energy that decreased" could be more precisely stated as "the only type of energy that saw a decrease." Additionally, there are minor errors in spelling and word formation, such as "which were produced in French" instead of "which were produced in France." These errors do not impede communication but do indicate a need for improvement.

How to improve: To enhance the lexical resource score, the writer should focus on using a wider range of vocabulary with greater precision. This includes practicing the correct usage of terms and phrases relevant to the topic. Additionally, minimizing spelling and word formation errors will contribute to a clearer and more professional presentation. Engaging with more complex vocabulary and ensuring that less common lexical items are used accurately can also elevate the overall quality 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. There are several grammatical errors and instances of awkward phrasing, such as "the proportion of several category of energy" (should be "categories") and "the same trend applied to the percentage of gas produced" (could be more clearly expressed). While these errors do not significantly hinder communication, they are frequent enough to prevent a higher score. The overall control of grammar and punctuation is adequate but not consistently accurate.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on enhancing grammatical accuracy and expanding the range of sentence structures. This can be done by practicing complex sentences and ensuring that subject-verb agreement and pluralization are correct. Additionally, proofreading for common errors and improving clarity in expression will help to reduce grammatical mistakes and enhance overall coherence.

Bài sửa mẫu

The two pie charts illustrate the proportion of several categories of energy, including gas, coal, petrol, nuclear, and others, produced in France during 1995 and 2005.

Overall, coal and gas remained the two most popular sources of power, while nuclear and other energy sources accounted for the lowest percentages of energy production in France. Petrol was the only type of energy that decreased during the 10-year period.

Coal was the most popular type of energy in France, accounting for approximately 29.8% in 1995 and increasing slightly over the years to reach about 31% of total energy production in 2005. A similar trend was observed in the percentage of gas produced, which rose by nearly 0.6%, from 29.63% in 1995 to slightly over 30.3% in 2005. Together, these two types of energy accounted for roughly 60% of total energy production in France.

In 1995, the third most popular type of energy was petrol, which comprised about 29.3% of the total production. However, over the 10-year period, petrol was the only type of energy that saw a decline, with its proportion dropping by 10% to 19.55% in 2005. Conversely, there were significant increases in the proportions of nuclear energy and other sources, with a notable growth of 4%, bringing the percentages of these energy sources to 10.1% and 9.1%, respectively.