The chart shows the average daily minimum and maximum levels of air pollutants in 4 cities in 2000.

The given chart indicates how the air in Los Angeles, Calcutta, Beijing and Mexico City was contaminated by SO2 and N2O in 2000.

Overall, Mexico City suffered from the worst air quality among the four cities caused by those two toxic gases, while the other metropolises had greater air conditions in general.

One prominent feature is that the everyday amount of N2O in the unfresh air was a bit more than that of SO2 in Mexico City, meaning air contamination in the area was caused by the existence of N2O rather than SO2. Moreover, the lowest amount of SO2 a day in Mexico City was two fifth the highest one, representing 80 micrograms per cubic metre compared to 200 micrograms per cubic metre. At the same time, the city also witnessed an increase by 94 micrograms per cubic metre between the minimum and maximum amount of N2O.

Investigating the remaining three cities, while Beijing and Calcutta’s air was poisoned by SO2 most, with approximately 62 and 53 micrograms per cubic metre per day on average, Los Angeles had a mere 6 micrograms per cubic metre of SO2 in the daily air. The reversed figures had been recorded in the N2O category. With an average of 71.5 micrograms per cubic metre of N2O reported in Los Angeles, the air standard of the city became the leader of being uncleaned by N2O, followed by Calcutta and Beijing, each at 41 and 34 micrograms per cubic metre of N2O in the air.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"the air in Los Angeles, Calcutta, Beijing and Mexico City was contaminated" -> "the air quality in Los Angeles, Calcutta, Beijing, and Mexico City was compromised"
Explanation: "Compromised" is a more formal term that conveys a deterioration in quality, while "contaminated" can imply a more severe level of pollution. Additionally, "air quality" is a more precise term in academic contexts.
"suffered from the worst air quality" -> "exhibited the poorest air quality"
Explanation: "Exhibited" is a more neutral term than "suffered," which carries emotional connotations. "Poorest" is a more precise descriptor in an academic context.
"greater air conditions in general" -> "relatively better air quality overall"
Explanation: "Relatively better" provides a clearer comparative context, while "air quality" is more specific than "air conditions."
"the everyday amount of N2O in the unfresh air" -> "the daily concentration of N2O in the polluted air"
Explanation: "Daily concentration" is a more precise term than "everyday amount," and "polluted air" is a more formal and accurate descriptor than "unfresh air."
"meaning air contamination in the area was caused by the existence of N2O rather than SO2" -> "indicating that air pollution in the area was primarily attributed to N2O rather than SO2"
Explanation: "Indicating" is more formal than "meaning," and "primarily attributed to" is a clearer and more precise way to express causation.
"the lowest amount of SO2 a day in Mexico City was two fifth the highest one" -> "the lowest daily concentration of SO2 in Mexico City was two-fifths of the highest concentration"
Explanation: "Daily concentration" is a more precise term, and "two-fifths of the highest concentration" is clearer and more grammatically correct than "two fifth the highest one."
"witnessed an increase by 94 micrograms per cubic metre" -> "experienced an increase of 94 micrograms per cubic metre"
Explanation: "Experienced" is a more formal term than "witnessed," and "increase of" is the correct prepositional phrase to use in this context.
"while Beijing and Calcutta’s air was poisoned by SO2 most" -> "while Beijing and Calcutta exhibited the highest levels of SO2 pollution"
Explanation: "Exhibited the highest levels of SO2 pollution" is more precise and formal than "air was poisoned by SO2 most."
"had a mere 6 micrograms per cubic metre of SO2 in the daily air" -> "recorded only 6 micrograms per cubic metre of SO2 on average"
Explanation: "Recorded only" is more formal than "had a mere," and "on average" clarifies that this is an average measurement.
"the air standard of the city became the leader of being uncleaned by N2O" -> "the air quality standard of the city ranked highest in N2O pollution"
Explanation: "Ranked highest in N2O pollution" is clearer and more formal than "became the leader of being uncleaned by N2O."
"each at 41 and 34 micrograms per cubic metre of N2O in the air" -> "each recording 41 and 34 micrograms per cubic metre of N2O, respectively"
Explanation: "Recording" is more precise than "at," and "respectively" clarifies the relationship between the two figures.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6

Explanation: The essay addresses the requirements of the task and presents an overview with information appropriately selected. The essay presents and adequately highlights key features/bullet points, but some details are irrelevant, inappropriate, or inaccurate. For example, the essay states that "the everyday amount of N2O in the unfresh air was a bit more than that of SO2 in Mexico City," which is not entirely accurate. The essay also states that "the lowest amount of SO2 a day in Mexico City was two fifth the highest one," which is not a clear or accurate way to express the data.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more accurate and relevant details. The essay could also be improved by using more precise language and avoiding unnecessary repetition. For example, the essay could be improved by stating that "the maximum level of N2O in Mexico City was 207 micrograms per cubic metre, while the maximum level of SO2 was 200 micrograms per cubic metre." This would be a more accurate and concise way to express the data.

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 outlines the air pollution levels in the four cities, with a clear introduction and an overall summary. However, there are instances where cohesion within and between sentences is somewhat mechanical, and the use of cohesive devices could be improved for better flow. For example, phrases like "one prominent feature" and "investigating the remaining three cities" could be more seamlessly integrated into the text. Additionally, while paragraphing is present, it could be more logically structured to enhance clarity.

How to improve: To achieve a higher score, the writer should focus on improving the use of cohesive devices to ensure a more natural flow of ideas. This can be done by varying the types of cohesive devices used and ensuring that they are applied appropriately. Additionally, enhancing the logical structure of paragraphs by clearly defining the main idea of each paragraph and ensuring smooth transitions between them would strengthen coherence. Finally, reducing redundancy and ensuring that each sentence contributes uniquely to the argument will help in achieving a clearer progression of ideas.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary relevant to the task, such as "contaminated," "toxic gases," and "micrograms per cubic metre." However, there are attempts to use less common vocabulary that are not always accurate, such as "unfresh air" and "poisoned by SO2," which may not convey the intended meaning clearly. There are also some errors in word formation and phrasing that could confuse the reader, such as "the air standard of the city became the leader of being uncleaned by N2O." These inaccuracies, along with occasional spelling errors, prevent the essay from achieving a higher band score.

How to improve: To enhance lexical resource, the writer should focus on using more precise vocabulary and ensuring that less common lexical items are used accurately. Additionally, improving control over word formation and avoiding awkward phrasing will contribute to clearer communication. Engaging with a wider range of vocabulary and practicing synonyms for common terms can also help elevate the overall quality of the writing.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a variety of complex sentence structures and maintains a good level of grammatical control. There are frequent error-free sentences, and the overall meaning is clear. However, there are a few grammatical inaccuracies and awkward phrasings that detract from the overall fluency and coherence. For instance, phrases like "the everyday amount of N2O in the unfresh air" could be more naturally expressed, and the use of "poisoned" may not be the most appropriate word choice in this context. These errors are not frequent enough to significantly hinder communication but do indicate room for improvement.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on refining sentence structures for clarity and precision. This includes using more natural phrasing and ensuring that vocabulary choices are contextually appropriate. Additionally, reviewing grammatical rules to minimize errors and enhancing the variety of sentence forms could further strengthen the essay. Regular practice with complex sentences and seeking feedback on grammatical accuracy can also be beneficial.

Bài sửa mẫu

The given chart indicates how the air in Los Angeles, Calcutta, Beijing, and Mexico City was contaminated by SO2 and N2O in 2000.

Overall, Mexico City experienced the worst air quality among the four cities due to these two toxic gases, while the other metropolises generally had better air conditions.

One prominent feature is that the daily amount of N2O in the polluted air was slightly higher than that of SO2 in Mexico City, indicating that air contamination in the area was primarily caused by the presence of N2O rather than SO2. Moreover, the lowest daily amount of SO2 in Mexico City was two-fifths of the highest level, representing 80 micrograms per cubic metre compared to 200 micrograms per cubic metre. At the same time, the city also experienced an increase of 94 micrograms per cubic metre between the minimum and maximum levels of N2O.

Examining the remaining three cities, Beijing and Calcutta were most affected by SO2, with average levels of approximately 62 and 53 micrograms per cubic metre per day, respectively, while Los Angeles had a mere 6 micrograms per cubic metre of SO2 in its daily air. Conversely, the figures for N2O were reversed. With an average of 71.5 micrograms per cubic metre of N2O reported in Los Angeles, the city had the highest level of N2O pollution, followed by Calcutta and Beijing, which recorded averages of 41 and 34 micrograms per cubic metre of N2O, respectively.