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

The diagrams illustrate how cutting tools used in the Stone Age had been developed, with tool A dating 1.4 million years ago and tool B 0.8 million years ago.
As can be seen from the diagrams, it is evident that the key difference between the cutting tools in two periods is the size, with the latter version becoming noticeably larger. Tool B also appeared more refined than its earlier counterpart in terms of shape and sharpness.
1.4 million years ago, the cutting tool measured 7 – 8 centimeters and did not display much craftsmanship. It was also rather uneven in appearance: the front and back were shaped differently and the surface was quite rough.
600 thousand years later, the cutting tool had become significantly more advanced. First of all, its length was noticeably longer than its old version, around 10cm. It is also noteworthy that the front view and the back view of the rock were identically similar to a teardrop while the side view appeared thinner. In addition, even though the thickness remained relatively unchanged, the surface had become smoother and sharper to enhance cutting functionality and users’ experience.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"As can be seen from the diagrams" -> "It is evident from the diagrams"
Explanation: The phrase "As can be seen from" is slightly informal and verbose. "It is evident from" is more concise and maintains an academic tone.
"the key difference" -> "the primary difference"
Explanation: "Key" can be somewhat informal in academic writing; "primary" is more precise and formal, fitting better in an academic context.
"noticeably larger" -> "substantially larger"
Explanation: "Noticeably" is somewhat vague and informal. "Substantially" provides a more precise degree of change, which is preferred in formal academic writing.
"more refined" -> "more sophisticated"
Explanation: "Refined" can be somewhat vague; "sophisticated" conveys a higher level of advancement and refinement, which is more suitable for an academic description of tool development.
"did not display much craftsmanship" -> "lacked significant craftsmanship"
Explanation: "Did not display much craftsmanship" is somewhat informal and imprecise. "Lacked significant craftsmanship" is more direct and formal, emphasizing the absence of skillful design.
"the front and back were shaped differently" -> "the front and rear had distinct shapes"
Explanation: "Were shaped differently" is a bit informal and vague. "Had distinct shapes" is more precise and formal, enhancing the description of the tool’s design.
"the surface was quite rough" -> "the surface was rough"
Explanation: "Quite" is redundant with "rough," making the statement less formal. Removing "quite" maintains the intended meaning while aligning with formal academic style.
"600 thousand years later" -> "600,000 years later"
Explanation: "600 thousand" is informal and less precise. Using the numeral "600,000" is more formal and appropriate for academic writing.
"the cutting tool had become significantly more advanced" -> "the cutting tool had undergone significant advancements"
Explanation: "Had become significantly more advanced" is slightly informal and vague. "Had undergone significant advancements" is more precise and formal, focusing on the process of improvement.
"First of all" -> "Firstly"
Explanation: "First of all" is colloquial and slightly informal. "Firstly" is a more formal transitional phrase suitable for academic writing.
"noteworthy" -> "notable"
Explanation: "Noteworthy" can imply a sense of importance or significance, which may be subjective. "Notable" simply indicates that something is worth noticing, which is more neutral and appropriate for an objective academic description.
"the thickness remained relatively unchanged" -> "the thickness remained unchanged"
Explanation: "Relatively" is unnecessary as "remained unchanged" already implies a comparison. Removing "relatively" simplifies and clarifies the statement.
"the surface had become smoother and sharper" -> "the surface became smoother and sharper"
Explanation: "Had become" is passive and less direct. Using "became" in the active voice enhances the clarity and directness of the description, aligning better with formal academic style.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay provides an overview of the main features of the cutting tools, including their size, shape, and sharpness. The essay also highlights the key differences between the two tools. However, the essay does not fully extend the key features and bullet points. For example, the essay states that the tool B is more refined than tool A, but it does not provide specific details about how the tool B is more refined.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more specific details about the key features of the cutting tools. For example, the essay could describe the shape of the tools in more detail, or it could provide more information about the sharpness of the tools. The essay could also be improved by providing a more detailed comparison of the two tools. For example, the essay could compare the size of the tools, the shape of the tools, and the sharpness of the tools.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay presents information in a coherent manner, with a clear overall progression from the description of the first tool to the second. However, while the ideas are arranged logically, there are instances where the cohesion between sentences could be improved. For example, the transition between discussing the size and the craftsmanship of the tools could be smoother. The use of cohesive devices is generally effective, but there are moments where it feels mechanical, particularly in the way comparisons are made. The paragraphing is present but could be more strategically organized to enhance clarity.
How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the essay could benefit from more varied and sophisticated cohesive devices to link ideas more fluidly. Additionally, ensuring that each paragraph has a clear central topic and that transitions between ideas are more seamless would enhance coherence. Finally, refining the paragraph structure to better separate distinct ideas or features of the tools would improve overall organization.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary for the task, effectively conveying the main features of the diagrams. It attempts to use less common vocabulary, such as "craftsmanship," "refined," and "enhanced," but there are instances of inaccuracy and awkward phrasing, such as "identically similar" and "users’ experience." While the vocabulary used does not impede communication, there are noticeable errors in word choice and some repetition, which detracts from the overall lexical resource.
How to improve: To enhance the lexical resource score, the writer should focus on using a wider range of vocabulary with greater precision and accuracy. This includes avoiding awkward phrases and ensuring that word choices are appropriate for the context. Additionally, incorporating more sophisticated vocabulary and varied expressions could elevate the quality of the essay. Practicing with synonyms and collocations, as well as proofreading for spelling and word formation errors, would also be beneficial.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0
Explanation: The essay demonstrates a variety of complex sentence structures and produces frequent error-free sentences. The grammatical control is generally good, with a few minor errors present that do not significantly hinder communication. The use of tenses is appropriate, and the writer effectively conveys the main features of the diagrams. However, there are some areas where sentence construction could be improved for clarity and conciseness, which prevents the score from reaching a higher band.
How to improve: To enhance the grammatical range and accuracy, the writer should focus on refining sentence structures to reduce minor errors and improve clarity. This can be achieved by practicing the use of more varied sentence types and ensuring that complex sentences are constructed accurately. Additionally, proofreading for grammatical errors and punctuation can help achieve a higher level of accuracy.

Bài sửa mẫu

The diagrams illustrate the development of cutting tools used in the Stone Age, with tool A dating back 1.4 million years and tool B 0.8 million years ago.

As can be seen from the diagrams, the key difference between the cutting tools from these two periods is their size, with the latter version becoming noticeably larger. Tool B also appears more refined than its earlier counterpart in terms of shape and sharpness.

1.4 million years ago, the cutting tool measured 7 to 8 centimeters and did not exhibit much craftsmanship. It was rather uneven in appearance: the front and back were shaped differently, and the surface was quite rough.

By 600 thousand years later, the cutting tool had become significantly more advanced. First of all, its length was noticeably longer than that of the previous version, measuring around 10 centimeters. It is also noteworthy that the front and back views of the rock were identically shaped like a teardrop, while the side view appeared thinner. In addition, although the thickness remained relatively unchanged, the surface had become smoother and sharper to enhance cutting functionality and the user experience.