The diagram below shows the development of cutting tools in the Stone Age.

The given diagram illustrates the evolution of cutting tools in two different eras in the Stone Age.

A closer look at the diagram reveals the fact that the tool has increased in length and become fitter for cutting purposes.

On the one hand, the tool from 1.4 million years ago did not show any craftmanship since it quite resembled the primitive stone. It measured about 8 cm in length. The front view and the back view had a significant difference in shape, however, both were rough in the surfaces. Similarly, the side view was thick and uneven.

On the other hand, 600000 years later, the tool saw a big development in order to make it become a more efficient cutting instrument. Firstly, its length ranged from 9 to 10 cm, a little bit longer than the previous ones. Secondly, it turned from an asymmetrical shape into a more even tear-drop shape. The surfaces from both sides were ground more smoothly and the top was crafted more sharpen. Additionally, The side view was thinner and more symmetrical, compared to tool A.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"cutting tools" -> "cutting instruments"
Explanation: "Instruments" is a more precise and formal term in academic contexts, particularly when referring to tools used for specific purposes like cutting.
"cutting purposes" -> "cutting functions"
Explanation: "Functions" is more specific and academically appropriate than "purposes," which is somewhat vague and informal in this context.
"did not show any craftmanship" -> "lacked craftsmanship"
Explanation: "Lacked craftsmanship" is a more concise and formal way to express the absence of skillful workmanship.
"quite resembled the primitive stone" -> "bore a resemblance to primitive stones"
Explanation: "Bore a resemblance to" is a more formal and precise phrase that enhances the academic tone.
"measured about 8 cm in length" -> "measured approximately 8 cm in length"
Explanation: "Approximately" is more precise and formal than "about," which is somewhat informal for academic writing.
"the front view and the back view had a significant difference in shape" -> "the front and rear views exhibited distinct differences in shape"
Explanation: "Exhibited distinct differences" is more formal and precise than "had a significant difference," which is somewhat colloquial.
"both were rough in the surfaces" -> "both surfaces were rough"
Explanation: Simplifying the phrase to "both surfaces were rough" improves readability and maintains formality.
"the side view was thick and uneven" -> "the side view was thick and irregular"
Explanation: "Irregular" is a more precise term than "uneven" in describing the shape of the tool’s side view.
"saw a big development" -> "underwent significant development"
Explanation: "Underwent significant development" is more formal and precise than "saw a big development," which is too casual.
"make it become a more efficient cutting instrument" -> "transform it into a more efficient cutting instrument"
Explanation: "Transform it into" is more formal and precise than "make it become," which is awkward and less formal.
"a little bit longer" -> "slightly longer"
Explanation: "Slightly" is a more formal adverb than "a little bit," which is colloquial.
"turned from an asymmetrical shape into a more even tear-drop shape" -> "evolved from an asymmetrical shape to a more symmetrical tear-drop shape"
Explanation: "Evolved" is a more precise verb for describing changes over time, and "symmetrical" is more specific than "more even."
"The surfaces from both sides were ground more smoothly" -> "the surfaces on both sides were more finely ground"
Explanation: "More finely ground" is a more precise and formal way to describe the degree of smoothness.
"The top was crafted more sharpen" -> "the top was more sharply crafted"
Explanation: "More sharply crafted" corrects the grammatical error and enhances the formality of the description.
"The side view was thinner and more symmetrical" -> "the side view was thinner and more symmetrical"
Explanation: This correction maintains the parallel structure and enhances the formality of the comparison.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay adequately addresses the task by providing an overview of the development of cutting tools in the Stone Age. It presents information appropriately selected from the diagram, highlighting key features such as the length, shape, and smoothness of the tools. However, the essay lacks a clear and concise overview of the main trends in the development of the tools. It also includes some irrelevant details, such as the specific measurements of the tools, which are not essential to understanding the overall development.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing a more concise and focused overview of the main trends in the development of the tools. The writer should also avoid including irrelevant details and focus on the key features that illustrate the development of the tools. For example, instead of stating the specific measurements of the tools, the writer could simply state that the tool from 600,000 years ago was longer and more symmetrical than the tool from 1.4 million years ago. The writer could also use more precise language to describe the changes in the tools, such as "refined" instead of "crafted more sharpen."

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay arranges information and ideas coherently, presenting a clear overall progression from the description of the earlier tool to the later one. However, while cohesive devices are used effectively, there are instances where cohesion between sentences could be improved, leading to some mechanical or awkward phrasing. The paragraphing is present but could be more logically structured to enhance clarity, particularly in distinguishing between the two tools discussed.

How to improve:

Enhance Cohesion: Use a wider variety of cohesive devices to link ideas and sentences more fluidly. For example, instead of "On the one hand" and "On the other hand," consider using phrases like "In contrast" or "Conversely" to improve the flow between paragraphs.
Logical Paragraphing: Ensure that each paragraph clearly focuses on a single aspect of the topic. For instance, you could separate the descriptions of the two tools into distinct paragraphs, making it clearer for the reader.
Clarify References: Improve referencing by ensuring that pronouns and other cohesive devices clearly relate back to the specific tools being discussed. This will help avoid confusion and enhance the overall clarity of the essay.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary relevant to the task, with some attempts to use less common terms (e.g., "craftsmanship," "asymmetrical," "tear-drop shape"). However, there are inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, such as "crafted more sharpen" instead of "sharper" and "the surfaces from both sides were ground more smoothly," which could be phrased more naturally. There are also some minor spelling and grammatical errors, such as "craftmanship" (should be "craftsmanship") and "the tool saw a big development" (which could be more precisely stated). These issues do not severely impede communication but indicate a need for improvement in lexical precision and control.

How to improve: To enhance the lexical resource score, the writer should focus on expanding their vocabulary further, particularly with synonyms and more precise terms related to the topic. Practicing the use of less common vocabulary in context and ensuring correct collocations will also help. Additionally, careful proofreading to eliminate spelling and grammatical errors will improve overall clarity and professionalism in writing. Engaging with a wider range of academic texts can also help in understanding and utilizing sophisticated vocabulary effectively.

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 score. While there are some effective complex structures, the essay contains several grammatical errors and awkward phrasing that occasionally hinder clarity. For example, phrases like "the tool has increased in length and become fitter for cutting purposes" could be more clearly articulated. Additionally, there are minor issues with punctuation and article usage, such as "the surfaces from both sides were ground more smoothly" which could be improved for better accuracy. Overall, while the communication is generally clear, the presence of errors and some lack of variety in sentence structures limits the score to a Band 6.

How to improve:

Increase Sentence Variety: Incorporate a wider range of complex sentence structures to enhance the overall grammatical range. This can be achieved by using more subordinate clauses and varying sentence beginnings.
Focus on Accuracy: Pay closer attention to grammatical accuracy, particularly with verb forms and article usage. Proofreading can help catch minor errors before submission.
Enhance Clarity: Aim for clearer phrasing in sentences. For instance, rephrasing sentences to avoid awkward constructions can improve readability.
Practice with Feedback: Regularly practice writing essays and seek feedback specifically on grammatical range and accuracy to identify persistent issues and areas for improvement.

Bài sửa mẫu

The given diagram illustrates the evolution of cutting tools across two different eras in the Stone Age.

A closer look at the diagram reveals that the tool has increased in length and become more suitable for cutting purposes.

On the one hand, the tool from 1.4 million years ago did not exhibit any craftsmanship, as it closely resembled a primitive stone. It measured about 8 cm in length. The front view and the back view displayed a significant difference in shape; however, both were rough in texture. Similarly, the side view was thick and uneven.

On the other hand, 600,000 years later, the tool underwent significant development to enhance its efficiency as a cutting instrument. Firstly, its length ranged from 9 to 10 cm, making it slightly longer than the previous version. Secondly, it transformed from an asymmetrical shape into a more even teardrop shape. The surfaces on both sides were ground more smoothly, and the top was crafted to be sharper. Additionally, the side view was thinner and more symmetrical compared to Tool A.