The chart below shows the average daily minimum and maximum levels of two air pollutants in four big cities in 2000.

The bar graph provided illustrates the ratio of the lowest and highest daily levels of two contaminated air in a specific region in 2000.
Generalized, Mexico became the most air pollution-polluted city, surpassing all other cities. In the meantime, Los Angeles emerged as the most environmentally beneficial region in 2000 due to its non-emissions.
The bar chart illustration provided indicates that the maximum SO2 and N2O concentrations were primarily collected in Mexico, with a total of more than 200 carbon emissions per day. The number of minimum N2O and SO2 was recorded at 113 and 80, respectively, following this. The daily ratio of the maximum S2 rank to the second in Beijing is 130. Regarding the remaining emissions, the corresponding air counts for maximum NO2, minimum SO2, and N02 were 34, 25, and 14, respectively.
Conversely, Calcutta is the third most polluted metropolis in the world, with a daily average of 60 tons of polluted air. With the exception of a substantial maximum N2O of 130 in 2000, Los Angeles is renowned for its environmentally friendly environment in comparison to contaminated cities.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

"illustrates" -> "depicts"
Explanation: "Depicts" is a more sophisticated alternative to "illustrates" that adds variety to the vocabulary and enhances the formality of the sentence.
"contaminated air" -> "ambient pollution"
Explanation: "Ambient pollution" is a more precise and formal term for polluted air, suitable for academic or technical contexts.
"Generalized" -> "Overall"
Explanation: "Overall" is a better transition to introduce a summary or conclusion, providing a smoother flow to the sentence.
"air pollution-polluted" -> "pollution-ridden"
Explanation: "Pollution-ridden" is a more concise and precise phrase to describe a city affected by pollution, avoiding repetition and enhancing clarity.
"non-emissions" -> "minimal emissions"
Explanation: "Minimal emissions" better conveys the idea of low or negligible emissions without using the informal term "non-emissions."
"primarily collected" -> "predominantly concentrated"
Explanation: "Predominantly concentrated" is a more formal and descriptive phrase to express the idea that the highest concentrations of pollutants were found in Mexico.
"carbon emissions" -> "pollutant emissions"
Explanation: "Pollutant emissions" is a more accurate term, encompassing various harmful substances emitted into the air, whereas "carbon emissions" is more specific to carbon dioxide.
"S2 rank" -> "SO2 concentration"
Explanation: "SO2 concentration" provides clarity and specificity, avoiding ambiguity that may arise from using "S2 rank."
"Regarding the remaining emissions" -> "As for the other pollutants"
Explanation: "As for the other pollutants" provides a smoother transition and avoids repetition of the word "emissions."
"metropolis" -> "urban center"
Explanation: "Urban center" is a broader and more neutral term compared to "metropolis," which may imply a larger or more developed city.
"polluted air" -> "pollution"
Explanation: "Pollution" is a more encompassing term that refers to the overall presence of contaminants in the air, eliminating redundancy and improving clarity.
"environmentally friendly environment" -> "eco-friendly atmosphere"
Explanation: "Eco-friendly atmosphere" is a more concise and idiomatic phrase to describe a place with minimal environmental impact, avoiding repetition and enhancing fluency.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay generally addresses the task by describing the data presented in the chart. It provides an overview of the pollution levels in four cities in 2000 and mentions key details such as maximum and minimum pollutant levels. However, there are several issues with clarity and accuracy. For instance, the description of Los Angeles as "the most environmentally beneficial region" lacks clarity and may be misleading. Additionally, the essay could provide a clearer overview of the trends in pollution levels across the cities.

How to improve: Provide a more precise and accurate description of the data without exaggeration or vague statements. Ensure that key trends and details are clearly presented and supported by the data provided in the chart. Avoid making assumptions or drawing conclusions not supported by the information given.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation:
The essay presents information with some organization, outlining the levels of air pollutants in four cities in 2000. There is an attempt at progression, starting with the general overview and then moving to specific data points. However, the progression is not entirely clear, and there are some instances of repetition, such as mentioning Los Angeles as environmentally friendly twice. Additionally, there are inconsistencies in referencing, such as using "the bar graph provided" but later referring to a "bar chart illustration". The essay lacks clarity in paragraphing, with some ideas not logically grouped into paragraphs. Cohesion is attempted with transitional phrases, but they are not always effective, leading to some disjointedness in the flow of ideas.

How to improve:
To improve coherence and cohesion, focus on organizing the essay more logically. Clearly outline the main points and ensure smooth transitions between ideas. Use consistent referencing and avoid unnecessary repetition. Also, ensure that each paragraph focuses on a clear central topic and follows a logical sequence. Finally, consider refining the use of cohesive devices to create a more cohesive and coherent essay.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates a limited range of vocabulary, with some inaccuracies and errors in word choice and collocation. While the writer attempts to convey information about the air pollution levels in various cities, there are noticeable errors and awkward phrasings throughout the essay that hinder clarity and precision. Additionally, there are instances of unclear or awkward sentence structure, which affect the overall coherence of the essay. The vocabulary used is somewhat repetitive and lacks sophistication, contributing to the essay’s overall limited lexical resource.

How to improve:

Expand Vocabulary: Work on expanding your range of vocabulary to convey ideas more precisely and effectively. Include more varied and appropriate lexical items relevant to the topic.
Accuracy in Word Choice: Pay close attention to word choice and ensure accuracy in selecting terms that convey the intended meaning clearly.
Improve Collocation: Practice using words in appropriate combinations and contexts to enhance fluency and coherence.
Sentence Structure: Focus on improving sentence structure for better clarity and coherence in conveying ideas.
Proofreading: Always proofread your essay carefully to correct spelling and word formation errors, which can impact the reader’s understanding and overall impression.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 3

Band Score: 3

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates an attempt at using a variety of sentence structures, but numerous grammatical errors and punctuation mistakes predominate throughout the text. The errors significantly distort the meaning and readability of the essay.

How to improve:

Grammar and Sentence Structure: Focus on improving sentence structures. Use a mix of simple and complex sentences appropriately.
Accuracy: Work on accuracy in grammar and punctuation.
Clarity and Coherence: Ensure that the meaning of sentences is clear and logical.

The essay lacks coherence and has numerous grammatical errors and punctuation mistakes that distort the meaning and make the text difficult to understand. The grammar is inconsistent and often incorrect, and there are several instances of awkward phrasing that affect the clarity of communication. Therefore, the band score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy is 3.

Bài sửa mẫu

The bar graph provided illustrates the ratio of the lowest and highest daily levels of two air pollutants in four major cities in the year 2000.

In general, Mexico City exhibited the highest levels of air pollution, surpassing all other cities. Conversely, Los Angeles emerged as the most environmentally friendly region in 2000 due to its minimal emissions.

The bar chart illustrates that the maximum concentrations of SO2 and N2O were predominantly observed in Mexico City, totaling over 200 units of carbon emissions per day. Following this, the minimum levels of N2O and SO2 were recorded at 113 and 80 units, respectively. Beijing ranked second in terms of maximum SO2 concentration, with a daily ratio of 130 compared to the highest recorded level. Additionally, the air pollution levels for maximum NO2, minimum SO2, and N02 in Beijing were recorded at 34, 25, and 14 units respectively.

On the other hand, Calcutta ranked as the third most polluted metropolis globally, with an average daily pollution level of 60 tons. Los Angeles, renowned for its environmentally friendly atmosphere, exhibited minimal pollution levels in comparison to the other cities, with the exception of a notable peak of 130 units of N2O in the year 2000.