The diagram compares the skeletons of two ancestors from which the human species is descended today.
The given diagram illustrates the difference between the skeletal systems of two human’s ancestors which are Australopth and Homo erectus.
It can be clearly seen that Australopith afarends are bigger in size compared to Homo erectus. Moreover, as erectus was developed to be a walker and runner, their shapes resemble more closely to modern people nowadays than that of afarends.
All parts in the upper body of afarends appear to be wider and bigger than that of erectus. While Australopith has an unbalanced head with long snout, Homo has a balanced one with short snout. As a tree climber, afarend has a high and narrow shoulder, wide chest and short wide waist. On the contrary, Homo erectus possesses a low and wide shoulder, narrow chest and tall, narrow waist. Moreover, afarend’s long forearms and big fingers are suitable for climbing and hanging on trees, whilst a runner like Homo erectus just needs a short and normal size of forearms and fingers bones.
Those bones of Australopith from the waist down, which include the gluteus maximus, joints in hip, knee and anide, Achilles tendon or heel bones, are all small and short. These are all in contrast with the skeleton system of Homo erectus, which appears to be big, long and stronger, suitable for the purpose of durable running. In addition, to facilitate the run, the Homo erectus also has a stabilized foot arch and short toes, just like modern humans, while that of Australopith are different with long toes and partial foot arch.
Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng
"Australopth" -> "Australopithecus"
Explanation: The correct term for one of the human ancestors is "Australopithecus," not "Australopth," which seems to be a typographical error. Using the accurate and complete term improves precision and avoids confusion.
"afarends" -> "afarensis"
Explanation: The correct species name is "Australopithecus afarensis," not "afarends." Using the accurate species name enhances scientific accuracy and clarity.
"snout" -> "muzzle"
Explanation: The term "muzzle" is a more precise and sophisticated word than "snout" when describing the facial structure. It adds specificity to the anatomical features being discussed.
"anide" -> "ankle"
Explanation: "Anide" is likely a typographical error, and the correct term is "ankle." Using the accurate term improves clarity and ensures a proper understanding of the anatomy being described.
"Homo erectus possesses a low and wide shoulder" -> "Homo erectus exhibits a broad and low shoulder structure"
Explanation: Restructuring the sentence for fluency and using "exhibits" instead of "possesses" adds a touch of formality. Additionally, the phrase "broad and low shoulder structure" is more descriptive and precise.
"just needs a short and normal size of forearms and fingers bones" -> "requires shorter and proportionately sized forearm and finger bones"
Explanation: The suggested change maintains clarity while using a more refined expression. "Proportionately sized" conveys a sense of appropriateness and is more technically precise.
"Those bones of Australopith from the waist down" -> "The lower limb bones of Australopithecus"
Explanation: Reframing the sentence for conciseness and clarity, specifying "lower limb bones" instead of a general reference to "those bones" provides a more focused and accurate description.
"joints in hip" -> "hip joints"
Explanation: Adjusting the phrasing for accuracy and conciseness, "hip joints" is a more standard way to refer to the joints associated with the hip.
"toes, just like modern humans, while that of Australopith are different with long toes and partial foot arch" -> "toes, similar to those of modern humans, whereas Australopithecus exhibits longer toes and a partial foot arch"
Explanation: Restructuring the sentence for clarity and using "whereas" enhances the contrast. Additionally, specifying "similar to those of modern humans" adds precision to the comparison.
Now, this essay should read more accurately and with improved vocabulary!
Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6
Band Score: 6.0
The essay addresses the requirements of the task by comparing the skeletal systems of Australopith afarensis and Homo erectus. It presents an overview with information appropriately selected, covering key features such as size, body proportions, and specific bone structures. The overall structure of the essay is clear, with distinct paragraphs discussing different aspects of the skeletons.
However, there are areas where the details may be considered irrelevant or not fully extended. For instance, the discussion on the head shape and snout length, while mentioned, lacks further elaboration on their significance or relevance to the overall comparison. Additionally, the mention of Homo erectus as a "runner" needs clarification or support from relevant information.
How to improve:
- Provide more detailed explanations for key features. For example, why is the size difference significant, and how does it contribute to the understanding of the evolution of the human species?
- Ensure that each point is fully developed and contributes directly to the comparison of the two ancestors.
- Provide supporting evidence or references to validate statements, especially those regarding the locomotion characteristics of Homo erectus.
By addressing these points, the essay can enhance its clarity, depth, and relevance, potentially achieving a higher band score.
Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6
Band Score: 6.0
The essay exhibits coherence and cohesion to a moderate extent. The logical organization is generally clear, with a progression from the upper body to the lower body in comparing Australopith and Homo erectus. The use of cohesive devices is effective in conveying relationships within sentences, although there are instances of mechanical cohesion. Each paragraph is dedicated to a specific aspect of the skeletal systems, contributing to overall clarity. However, the transitions between paragraphs could be smoother to enhance the flow of ideas.
How to improve:
To elevate the coherence and cohesion to a higher band, consider refining the use of cohesive devices to create a seamless connection between sentences and paragraphs. Ensure that the progression of ideas is not only clear within paragraphs but also between them. Additionally, work on enhancing the logical flow by employing more advanced transitional phrases. This will contribute to a more polished and cohesive essay.
Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6
Band Score: 6.5
The essay demonstrates an attempt to use a decent range of vocabulary and showcases some awareness of less common lexical items related to skeletal structures and functions. The writer makes distinctions between the anatomies of Australopith and Homo erectus, attempting to convey differences in size, shapes, and functionalities. There is a mix of vocabulary related to skeletal features, but it lacks the precision and sophistication needed for higher bands. Some attempts at specific anatomical terms are evident, but accuracy issues and occasional inaccuracies in word choice affect the precision of conveying ideas.
How to improve:
- Precision and Specificity: Refining the use of anatomical terminology would enhance clarity and accuracy in describing skeletal features.
- Complexity and Variety: Expanding the range of vocabulary to describe skeletal structures and their functions would elevate the lexical richness.
- Grammar and Syntax: Strengthening sentence structures and ensuring grammatical accuracy will further enhance the essay’s overall quality.
Refining the understanding and use of specialized vocabulary related to skeletal anatomy and focusing on grammatical accuracy can elevate the lexical resource of the essay.
Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 6
Band Score: 6.5
The essay demonstrates a mix of sentence structures, including simple and complex sentence forms. It attempts to convey a comparison between Australopithecus afarensis and Homo erectus, focusing on their skeletal differences. There are errors in grammar and punctuation throughout the essay, but these errors do not significantly impede communication. The essay contains some effective descriptions of anatomical disparities between the two ancestors, yet the language usage lacks consistency and precision. The essay generally communicates the intended information but lacks fluidity and clarity in some areas.
How to improve:
To enhance the grammatical range and accuracy, the writer should aim for a more varied and refined sentence structure. Revision for grammatical errors and punctuation inconsistencies is crucial to achieve clearer communication. Incorporating a wider range of vocabulary and using more precise terminology related to anatomical features would further elevate the essay’s quality. Additionally, focusing on organizing ideas coherently and logically would significantly improve the overall effectiveness of the essay.
Bài sửa mẫu
The provided diagram compares the skeletal structures of two human ancestors, Australopith and Homo erectus.
The diagram outlines the distinctions in the skeletal compositions of Australopith and Homo erectus, both considered ancestral to the contemporary human species.
It is evident from the illustration that Australopith afarensis exhibits larger skeletal proportions in comparison to Homo erectus. Additionally, the skeletal features of Homo erectus bear closer resemblance to modern humans, reflecting adaptations for walking and running.
Examining the upper body, Australopith displays broader dimensions in all aspects compared to Homo erectus. Notably, Australopith’s head is characterized by an unbalanced structure with a lengthy snout, while Homo erectus possesses a more balanced head with a shorter snout. Adapted for tree climbing, Australopith features a higher and narrower shoulder, a wide chest, and a short, broad waist. Conversely, Homo erectus showcases a lower and wider shoulder, a narrower chest, and a tall, narrow waist. Furthermore, the long forearms and large fingers of Australopith are suited for climbing and tree-hanging, whereas the shorter, standard-sized forearms and fingers of Homo erectus align with characteristics required for running.
Moving to the lower body, Australopith’s bones from the waist down, including the gluteus maximus, hip and knee joints, Achilles tendon, and heel bones, are notably smaller and shorter. This stands in stark contrast to Homo erectus, whose lower body skeleton appears larger, longer, and more robust, indicating adaptations for sustained running. Additionally, Homo erectus features a stable foot arch and shorter toes, resembling the foot structure of modern humans, while Australopith exhibits longer toes and a partial foot arch, distinguishing its foot anatomy.
In conclusion, the skeletal comparison between Australopith and Homo erectus highlights the evolutionary adaptations for climbing in the former and running in the latter, with Homo erectus displaying features more akin to present-day humans.