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

The given diagram analyzes the cutting tool transformation from 1.4 million years ago to 0.8 million years ago.

From an overall perspective, the stone surfaces were more rough over 0.6 million years except the side view. It is noticeable that every stone top was sharper than the original, especially at the side view that can be clearly witnessed at the top and the bottom.

As can be seen from the diagram, 1.4 million years ago, from the front , it was approximately high at 9 with the biggest part at the middle, while 2 part ends were much smaller. Furthermore, much thicker could be seen from the back side,t he top part was perhaps better than
the bottom.

Over the past 0.6 million years later, tool B had a gradual change when a number of sides were 2 or 3 cm larger. From the front view of tool B, it could be witnessed like a water drop with sharp points from the top and a round bottom. From the side view, it is sharper and smaller than tool A, despite the notable height. The back view recorded a bigger size compared to tool A.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"The given diagram analyzes" -> "The diagram illustrates"
Explanation: "Illustrates" is more precise and academically appropriate than "analyzes" in this context, as it correctly describes the visual representation of data rather than the process of analysis.
"stone surfaces were more rough" -> "stone surfaces were rougher"
Explanation: "Rougher" is the comparative form of "rough," which is grammatically correct and more precise in describing the comparative state of the stone surfaces.
"every stone top was sharper" -> "each stone top was sharper"
Explanation: "Each" is more specific and appropriate in academic writing than "every," which can sometimes imply a universal truth that may not be intended.
"can be clearly witnessed at the top and the bottom" -> "is evident at both the top and bottom"
Explanation: "Is evident" is a more formal and precise way to describe the observation of the diagram, replacing the more colloquial "can be clearly witnessed."
"it was approximately high at 9" -> "it measured approximately 9"
Explanation: "Measured" is a more precise term for describing the size or height of an object, fitting better in an academic context than the vague "was high."
"the biggest part at the middle" -> "the largest portion in the center"
Explanation: "Largest portion" is more specific and formal than "biggest part," and "in the center" is more precise than "at the middle."
"much thicker could be seen from the back side,t he top part was perhaps better than" -> "the back side appeared thicker, and the top portion was potentially superior"
Explanation: Corrects the grammatical error and uses "appeared" and "potentially superior" to enhance formality and clarity.
"Over the past 0.6 million years later" -> "Six hundred thousand years later"
Explanation: "Six hundred thousand years later" is a clearer and more precise temporal reference than the vague "Over the past 0.6 million years later."
"a number of sides were 2 or 3 cm larger" -> "the dimensions increased by 2-3 cm"
Explanation: "The dimensions increased by 2-3 cm" is more specific and academically appropriate than "a number of sides were 2 or 3 cm larger."
"it could be witnessed like a water drop" -> "it resembled a water drop"
Explanation: "Resembled" is a more formal and precise term than "could be witnessed like," which is too colloquial for academic writing.
"despite the notable height" -> "despite its notable height"
Explanation: Adding "its" clarifies that the pronoun refers to the tool, improving grammatical accuracy.
"The back view recorded a bigger size" -> "The rear view indicated a larger size"
Explanation: "Indicated" is more precise and formal than "recorded," which is typically used for data collection rather than observation. "Rear view" is also more specific than "back view."

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 4

Band Score: 4

Explanation: The essay attempts to address the task but does not cover all key features/bullet points. The essay does not provide a clear overview of the development of the cutting tool. It focuses on details about the shape and size of the tools, but does not adequately describe the changes that

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0
Explanation: The essay presents information about the cutting tool’s development but lacks clear overall progression and logical organization. While it attempts to describe the changes over time, the ideas are not fully developed or connected, leading to some confusion. The use of cohesive devices is present but often inaccurate or repetitive, which affects the clarity of the relationships between ideas. Additionally, paragraphing is attempted but not always logical, as the structure does not effectively separate different aspects of the information presented.
How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, the essay should clearly outline the main points in a logical sequence. Each paragraph should focus on a specific aspect of the tool’s development, with clear topic sentences and supporting details. Improving the use of cohesive devices, such as conjunctions and referencing, will help clarify relationships between ideas. Lastly, ensuring that paragraphs are logically structured and clearly delineated will contribute to a more coherent overall presentation.

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 transformation of the cutting tool, the vocabulary used is basic and repetitive, with several inaccuracies in word choice and collocation. For instance, phrases like "the biggest part at the middle" and "could be witnessed like a water drop" lack precision and clarity. Additionally, there are noticeable errors in spelling and word formation, such as "t he" instead of "the" and "much thicker could be seen" which disrupt the flow of the essay. These issues may cause some difficulty for the reader in understanding the descriptions provided.

How to improve: To enhance the Lexical Resource score, the writer should aim to expand their vocabulary by incorporating more varied and precise terms related to the topic. Using synonyms and less common lexical items can help convey meanings more effectively. Additionally, focusing on correct collocations and improving spelling and grammatical accuracy will enhance clarity. Practicing the use of descriptive language and varying sentence structures can also contribute to a more sophisticated presentation of ideas.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0
Explanation: The essay demonstrates a limited range of grammatical structures, primarily using simple sentences with some attempts at complex forms. However, there are frequent grammatical errors and issues with punctuation that can cause difficulty for the reader. For instance, phrases like "the biggest part at the middle" and "much thicker could be seen from the back side" indicate awkward constructions and lack of clarity. Additionally, errors such as "the top part was perhaps better than the bottom" detract from the overall coherence of the writing. While some sentences are understandable, the frequent inaccuracies hinder effective communication.

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

Variety of Sentence Structures: Incorporate a wider range of complex sentences and ensure that they are grammatically correct. This can be achieved by using subordinating conjunctions and relative clauses.
Error Correction: Carefully proofread the essay to identify and correct grammatical errors and punctuation mistakes. Paying attention to subject-verb agreement and article usage can significantly improve accuracy.
Clarity and Coherence: Work on constructing clearer sentences that convey the intended meaning without ambiguity. This can involve rephrasing awkward constructions and ensuring that comparisons are logically presented.
Practice: Regularly practice writing essays and seek feedback to identify common errors and areas for improvement. Engaging with a variety of writing prompts can also help build confidence in using diverse grammatical structures.

Bài sửa mẫu

The given diagram analyzes the transformation of the cutting tool from 1.4 million years ago to 0.8 million years ago.

From an overall perspective, the stone surfaces were rougher over the 0.6 million years, except for the side view. It is noticeable that every stone top was sharper than the original, especially in the side view, which can be clearly observed at both the top and the bottom.

As can be seen from the diagram, 1.4 million years ago, from the front view, the tool was approximately 9 cm high, with the largest part in the middle, while the two ends were much smaller. Furthermore, it appeared much thicker from the back side; the top part was perhaps better finished than the bottom.

Over the past 0.6 million years, tool B underwent a gradual change, with several sides being 2 to 3 cm larger. From the front view of tool B, it resembles a water drop with sharp points at the top and a rounded bottom. From the side view, it is sharper and smaller than tool A, despite its notable height. The back view shows a larger size compared to tool A.