The diagram below shows the development of cutting tools in the Stone Age. Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The diagram depicts how cutting instruments used in the Stone Age evolved between 1.4 million and 0.8 million years ago.

As can be inferred from the picture, the tools witnessed a substantial transformation over the 0.6 years period. Notably, these enhancements contributed to the effectiveness of the cutting instruments.

Regarding the front view, tool A had rough edges and no clear shape, whereas tool B had a tear-like shape along with a pointy tip. This feature would give tool B an edge over tool A when it comes to cutting or penetrating things.

In terms of side view and back view, tool B proved to be significantly larger, compared to tool A, which would be more handy when cutting large items. Additionally, the side view of tool A and tool B demonstrated a manifest difference. While the former’s edges were rugged and blunt, the latter’s were substantially sharper, more refined and knife-like.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"cutting instruments" -> "cutting tools"
Explanation: "Cutting tools" is a more precise and commonly used term in academic contexts than "cutting instruments," which can be vague and less specific.
"substantial transformation" -> "significant advancements"
Explanation: "Significant advancements" is a more precise term that conveys improvement and progress in a formal academic context, whereas "substantial transformation" might imply a more dramatic or extreme change.
"0.6 years period" -> "a 600,000-year period"
Explanation: "A 600,000-year period" is more precise and formal, avoiding the informal and imprecise "0.6 years period."
"Notably, these enhancements contributed to the effectiveness" -> "Notably, these improvements enhanced the effectiveness"
Explanation: "Enhanced" is more specific and academically appropriate than "contributed to," which is somewhat vague and less direct.
"tool A had rough edges and no clear shape" -> "tool A featured rough edges and an indistinct shape"
Explanation: "Featured" is a more formal synonym for "had," and "indistinct" is a more precise term than "no clear shape," which is somewhat vague.
"a tear-like shape along with a pointy tip" -> "a tear-shaped form with a pointed tip"
Explanation: "Tear-shaped form" and "pointed tip" are more precise and formal, enhancing the academic tone of the description.
"give tool B an edge" -> "advantaged tool B"
Explanation: "Advantaged" is a more formal and precise term than "give an edge," which is colloquial.
"when it comes to cutting or penetrating things" -> "in terms of cutting or penetration"
Explanation: "In terms of cutting or penetration" is more formal and avoids the colloquial "when it comes to."
"would be more handy" -> "would be more suitable"
Explanation: "More suitable" is a more formal and precise term than "more handy," which is informal and vague.
"manifest difference" -> "distinct difference"
Explanation: "Distinct" is more academically appropriate than "manifest," which can imply a more obvious or obvious difference, which might not be the intended meaning.
"edges were rugged and blunt" -> "edges were rugged and blunt"
Explanation: "Edges were rugged and blunt" is redundant as "rugged" already implies bluntness. Removing "blunt" corrects this redundancy and maintains clarity.
"substantially sharper, more refined and knife-like" -> "significantly sharper and more refined, resembling a knife"
Explanation: "Significantly sharper and more refined, resembling a knife" is more precise and avoids the redundancy of "substantially sharper, more refined and knife-like."

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6

Explanation: The essay adequately addresses the task by providing an overview of the development of cutting tools in the Stone Age. It identifies the main features of the two tools and makes some comparisons between them. However, the essay lacks a clear and concise overview of the main trends in the development of these tools. It also includes some irrelevant details, such as the statement that tool B would be more handy when cutting large items.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing a more comprehensive overview of the development of cutting tools in the Stone Age. The essay should also focus on the key features of the tools and avoid irrelevant details. For example, the essay could state that tool B is more refined and has a sharper edge than tool A, which would make it more effective for cutting. The essay could also mention that the development of these tools reflects the increasing sophistication of human technology in the Stone Age.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay arranges information and ideas coherently, providing a clear overall progression from the introduction to the comparisons of the tools. However, while cohesive devices are used effectively, there are instances where cohesion between sentences could be improved, leading to a somewhat mechanical flow. 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 writer should focus on enhancing the logical flow of ideas within and between paragraphs. This could involve using a wider range of cohesive devices and ensuring that each paragraph has a clear central topic that is well-developed. Additionally, refining the use of referencing and substitution would help avoid repetition and improve overall coherence.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary relevant to the task, using terms like "depicts," "transformation," "enhancements," and "penetrating." However, the vocabulary is somewhat basic and lacks the sophistication or variety expected at higher band levels. There are attempts to use less common vocabulary, but inaccuracies such as "tear-like shape" and "manifest difference" detract from the overall precision. Additionally, there are some minor errors in word formation and phrasing, but they do not impede communication.
How to improve: To enhance the lexical resource score, the writer should aim to incorporate a wider range of vocabulary, particularly less common lexical items, while ensuring precise word choice and appropriate collocations. Practicing synonyms and varying sentence structures can help improve fluency and flexibility in conveying meanings. Furthermore, proofreading for spelling and word formation errors would also contribute to a higher score.

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 are some effective complex structures, the essay contains several grammatical errors and awkward phrasing that occasionally hinder clarity. For instance, phrases like "over the 0.6 years period" and "the former’s edges were rugged and blunt" could be more clearly expressed. Overall, the errors present do not significantly impede communication, but they do detract from the overall grammatical accuracy.
How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on increasing the accuracy of their grammatical structures and reducing errors. This can be done by proofreading for common mistakes, ensuring that complex sentences are constructed correctly, and varying sentence structures more effectively. Additionally, enhancing vocabulary to express ideas more clearly and precisely would contribute to a stronger performance in this criterion.

Bài sửa mẫu

The diagram depicts how cutting instruments used in the Stone Age evolved between 1.4 million and 0.8 million years ago.

As can be inferred from the illustration, the tools underwent a substantial transformation over the 0.6 million years period. Notably, these enhancements contributed to the effectiveness of the cutting instruments.

Regarding the front view, Tool A had rough edges and lacked a distinct shape, whereas Tool B exhibited a tear-like shape with a pointed tip. This feature would give Tool B an advantage over Tool A when it comes to cutting or penetrating materials.

In terms of the side view and back view, Tool B proved to be significantly larger compared to Tool A, making it more practical for cutting larger items. Additionally, the side view of Tool A and Tool B demonstrated a clear difference. While the former’s edges were rugged and blunt, the latter’s were substantially sharper, more refined, and knife-like.