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

The pictures illustrates the innovation of slicing instruments during the period from 14 million years ago to 0,8 million years ago.

It can be seen that after a lot of updates, tool A was enhanced about the shape and size to become a more effective cutting tool.

1.4 million years ago, the tool was relatively primitive and resembled a nature stone, which suggests that little crafting was done. in both front side and back side , Tool a had a triangle shape, rough surface and narrow in slide view. Therefore, this tool probably blunter and inferior than version B.

After 0.6 million years ago, the tool was innovated into a spear- shaped instrument with the tip and edges being much sharper. While the Tool B had a shape like a drop of water and the length about 10 centimeters, the surface of it was also smootheer and become thinner in slide view. As a reason, these features was rated
more superior than tool A intern of cutting efficiency.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"The pictures illustrates" -> "The pictures illustrate"
Explanation: The verb "illustrate" should be in the plural form "illustrate" to agree with the plural subject "pictures."
"during the period from 14 million years ago to 0,8 million years ago" -> "over a period spanning 14 million to 0.8 million years ago"
Explanation: The phrase "over a period spanning" is more precise and formal than "during the period from," and correcting the decimal notation to "0.8" improves readability and accuracy.
"after a lot of updates" -> "following numerous updates"
Explanation: "Numerous" is more formal and precise than "a lot," which is colloquial and vague.
"enhanced about the shape and size" -> "enhanced in terms of shape and size"
Explanation: "In terms of" is a more formal and precise prepositional phrase than "about," which is less specific.
"a nature stone" -> "a natural stone"
Explanation: "Natural" is the correct adjective to describe a stone, whereas "nature" is a noun.
"in both front side and back side" -> "on both sides"
Explanation: "On both sides" is a more concise and formal way to describe the orientation of the tool.
"slide view" -> "side view"
Explanation: "Slide view" is unclear and likely a typographical error; "side view" is the correct term.
"blunter and inferior than version B" -> "less sharp and inferior to version B"
Explanation: "Less sharp" is a more precise description than "blunter," and "inferior to" is grammatically correct compared to "inferior than."
"innovated into a spear- shaped instrument" -> "developed into a spear-shaped tool"
Explanation: "Developed" is a more specific verb for describing the evolution of tools, and "tool" is more appropriate than "instrument" in this context.
"the tip and edges being much sharper" -> "the tip and edges were significantly sharper"
Explanation: Adding "were" corrects the tense to match the past context, and "significantly" enhances the formality and precision of the description.
"the surface of it was also smootheer" -> "the surface was also smoother"
Explanation: "Smootheer" is a typographical error; "smoother" is the correct form.
"As a reason, these features was rated" -> "As a result, these features were rated"
Explanation: "As a result" is the correct conjunction for indicating the consequence of an action, and "were" corrects the subject-verb agreement.
"intern of cutting efficiency" -> "in terms of cutting efficiency"
Explanation: "In terms of" is the correct prepositional phrase for comparing features based on a specific criterion.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5

Explanation: The essay attempts to address the task by describing the changes in the tools, but it does not provide a clear overview of the main features. The essay focuses on details, such as the shape and size of the tools, rather than providing a broader comparison of the two tools. The essay also includes some irrelevant information, such as the statement that "Tool A had a triangle shape, rough surface and narrow in slide view." This information is not relevant to the task, which is to summarise the main features of the tools and make comparisons.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing a clearer overview of the main features of the tools. The essay should also focus on making comparisons between the two tools, rather than simply describing them individually. The essay should avoid including irrelevant information. The writer should also focus on the key features of the tools, such as the shape, size, and sharpness, rather than focusing on details such as the surface of the tools.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0
Explanation: The essay presents information about the development of cutting tools, but it lacks clear overall progression and organization. While there is an attempt to describe the tools and their features, the ideas are not logically sequenced, leading to some confusion. The use of cohesive devices is inadequate and at times inaccurate, which affects the clarity of comparisons made between the tools. Additionally, the paragraphing is inconsistent, with some sentences appearing disjointed and lacking a clear connection to the main topic.
How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, the essay should focus on logically organizing the information in a clear sequence. Each paragraph should have a distinct central topic, and the use of cohesive devices should be varied and appropriate to avoid repetition. Additionally, ensuring that paragraphing is logical and that each paragraph flows smoothly into the next will improve overall clarity. Using linking words and phrases effectively can help to establish clearer relationships between ideas.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0
Explanation: The essay demonstrates a limited range of vocabulary that is minimally adequate for the task. While it attempts to describe the development of cutting tools, the vocabulary used is basic and repetitive, with noticeable errors in word choice and spelling. For instance, phrases like "nature stone" and "blunter and inferior" are awkwardly constructed, and there are issues with collocation such as "smootheer" instead of "smoother." Additionally, the use of "intern" instead of "in terms of" indicates a lack of control over lexical features. Overall, while the essay communicates the main ideas, the vocabulary does not sufficiently convey precise meanings or demonstrate flexibility.

How to improve:
To enhance the Lexical Resource score, the writer should aim to expand their vocabulary by incorporating more varied and sophisticated lexical items. This can be achieved by practicing synonyms and less common expressions related to the topic. Additionally, paying attention to collocations and ensuring correct word forms will improve clarity and precision. Regular reading of high-quality texts can also help in understanding how to use vocabulary more effectively in context. Finally, proofreading for spelling and grammatical errors will help to eliminate minor mistakes that could detract from the overall impression of the essay.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0
Explanation: The essay demonstrates a limited range of grammatical structures and makes frequent grammatical errors. While there are attempts at complex sentences, they are often inaccurate or poorly constructed, which can cause some difficulty for the reader. For instance, phrases like "the pictures illustrates" and "the surface of it was also smootheer" contain subject-verb agreement errors and spelling mistakes, respectively. Additionally, the use of punctuation is inconsistent, particularly with the use of commas and periods, which affects the overall clarity of the writing.

How to improve: To enhance the grammatical range and accuracy, the writer should focus on the following areas:

Subject-Verb Agreement: Ensure that subjects and verbs agree in number (e.g., "the pictures illustrate" instead of "the pictures illustrates").
Spelling and Vocabulary: Pay attention to spelling errors (e.g., "smootheer" should be "smoother") and use a wider range of vocabulary to express ideas more clearly.
Complex Sentences: Practice constructing complex sentences correctly, ensuring that subordinate clauses are used appropriately.
Punctuation: Review punctuation rules to improve clarity, particularly in separating clauses and using commas correctly.
Proofreading: Implement a proofreading step to catch and correct errors before submission.

Bài sửa mẫu

The pictures illustrate the innovation of slicing instruments during the period from 1.4 million years ago to 0.8 million years ago.

It can be seen that after numerous updates, Tool A was enhanced in terms of shape and size to become a more effective cutting tool.

1.4 million years ago, the tool was relatively primitive and resembled a natural stone, suggesting that little crafting had been done. On both the front and back sides, Tool A had a triangular shape, a rough surface, and appeared narrow in side view. Therefore, this tool was probably blunter and inferior to version B.

After 0.6 million years ago, the tool evolved into a spear-shaped instrument with much sharper tips and edges. While Tool B had a shape resembling a drop of water and a length of about 10 centimeters, its surface was also smoother and thinner in side view. As a result, these features were rated as more superior to Tool A in terms of cutting efficiency.