The graph below shows average carbon dioxide emissions per person in the UK, Sweden, Italy and Portugal between 1967and 2007

The line graph illustrates how many carbon dioxide discharges in metric tonnes per person in 4 countries including the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy, and Portugal over the period of 40 years starting from 1967.
Overall, it is clearly seen that the amount of CO2 emissions per person in Portugal and Italy are upward trend while the opposite was true for the United Kingdom and Sweden. Another striking feature is that the average CO2 discharge in Portugal was the lowest throughout the provided period.
As can be seen from the graph, the amount of carbon dioxide released in the United Kingdom was the highest, which stood at around 11 tonnes at the beginning of the period. Then the figure plateaued at 11 tonnes in 1977 before declining to just under 9 tonnes in 2007. Besides, the average CO2 emissions in Sweden started at around 9 tonnes in 1967, which is the same point as the United Kingdom in 2007. After that, it rose slightly to over 10 tonnes in 1977 and dropped moderately to just below 6 tonnes at the end of the period.
Moreover, the average carbon dioxide discharges per person in Italy stood at over 4 tonnes at the beginning of the period. The figure increased significantly to under 8 tonnes in 1997, then stayed unchanged at below 8 tonnes in 2007. Furthermore, the CO2 emissions per person in Portugal stood at about 1 tonne in 1967, after which it experienced a rise to over 5 tonnes in 1997. After that, the figure fluctuated at the same point as Sweden at under 6 tonnes at the end of the period.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

"how many carbon dioxide discharges" -> "the quantity of carbon dioxide emissions"
Explanation: "discharges" is not the most appropriate term here as it implies a sudden release or emission. "Emissions" is a more accurate and common term used to describe the output of carbon dioxide.
"upward trend" -> "an upward trajectory"
Explanation: "Trend" is a bit informal in this context. "Trajectory" is a more formal and precise term to describe the direction of change in CO2 emissions over time.
"Another striking feature is that" -> "Another notable aspect is that"
Explanation: "Striking" is a subjective term and may not convey the intended meaning effectively. "Notable" is a more neutral and precise alternative to describe an important feature.
"the average CO2 discharge" -> "the average CO2 emission"
Explanation: "Discharge" is more commonly used in the context of releases from specific sources like factories or vehicles. "Emission" is the appropriate term for describing the overall output of CO2.
"The figure plateaued" -> "The figure remained stable"
Explanation: "Plateaued" suggests a sudden leveling off, which may not accurately represent the data. "Remained stable" conveys the idea of a consistent level over a period of time more accurately.
"rose slightly" -> "increased marginally"
Explanation: "Rose slightly" is somewhat vague. "Increased marginally" provides a clearer indication of a small but noticeable rise.
"dropped moderately" -> "declined moderately"
Explanation: "Dropped" is colloquial and might not be the most appropriate term for a formal essay. "Declined" is more suitable for describing a decrease in CO2 emissions.
"stood at over" -> "was above"
Explanation: "Stood at" is slightly awkward. "Was above" is a more concise and formal way to indicate a specific value.
"experienced a rise" -> "underwent an increase"
Explanation: "Experienced a rise" is a bit repetitive. "Underwent an increase" offers a more varied and precise description.
"fluctuated at the same point as" -> "fluctuated around the same level as"
Explanation: "At the same point as" is imprecise. "Around the same level as" more accurately conveys the idea that the CO2 emissions in Portugal fluctuated near the level of emissions in Sweden.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 7

[
Band Score: 7.0

Explanation: The essay adequately covers the requirements of the task by describing the overall trends and providing details for each country. It presents a clear overview of the main trends, noting that the CO2 emissions for Portugal and Italy increased over time, while they decreased for the UK and Sweden. It also appropriately highlights key features, mentioning specific figures and describing changes over the given period. However, the response could be more fully extended with more detail on specific trends, comparisons, and patterns across the countries. Some of the explanations may also be slightly repetitive.

How to improve: To increase the band score, the essay could offer a more comprehensive exploration of the data, focusing on comparing and contrasting trends across the countries in more depth. This would include more detailed analysis of fluctuations and more emphasis on key changes and turning points. The essay could also provide a clearer structure to guide the reader through the information, ensuring that the presentation of data is smooth and avoids redundancy.
]

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay arranges information in a coherent manner with a clear overall progression. It introduces the topic and provides an overview of the data in the introduction. Each body paragraph focuses on a specific country’s data and follows a logical progression of time. The use of cohesive devices is effective in connecting ideas within and between sentences, aiding the flow of information. However, there are instances of mechanical cohesion, and some sentences could be more varied to avoid repetition. Paragraphing is utilized, but there are slight issues with logical sequencing, especially in the introduction where the overview could be more concise.

How to improve: To improve coherence and cohesion, focus on refining sentence structures to enhance variety and clarity. Ensure that cohesive devices are used naturally and effectively to link ideas throughout the essay. Work on paragraphing to ensure each paragraph presents a clear central topic and follows a logical sequence of ideas. Additionally, strive for a more concise and precise overview in the introduction to set the stage for the subsequent analysis.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6

Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary for the task, including specific terms related to the data presented such as "carbon dioxide emissions," "metric tonnes," and the names of the countries. Additionally, there is an attempt to use less common vocabulary, such as "discharges" instead of "emissions." However, there are some inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, as seen in phrases like "carbon dioxide discharges" and "CO2 discharge," which could be improved for clarity and precision. There are also some errors in spelling and word formation, such as "moderately" instead of "modestly," and "experience" instead of "experienced." These errors do not significantly impede communication but could affect the overall clarity and fluency of the essay.

How to improve: To improve lexical resource, strive for more precise and appropriate word choices throughout the essay. Proofreading for spelling and word formation errors can help enhance clarity and professionalism. Additionally, consider refining the use of less common vocabulary to ensure it aligns well with the context and enhances the overall sophistication of the essay.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates a good range of grammatical structures and maintains overall accuracy, which aligns with the Band 7 descriptor. The writer effectively uses varied sentence structures, such as simple and complex sentences, contributing to the essay’s coherence and cohesion. There is a general control of grammar and punctuation, with most sentences being error-free or having minor errors that do not impede understanding. For instance, there are minor issues like missing articles ("how many carbon dioxide discharges") and awkward phrasing ("average CO2 discharge in Portugal was the lowest throughout the provided period"), but these do not significantly affect communication.

How to improve:
To enhance the grammatical range and accuracy further and possibly reach a Band 8, focus on refining sentence structures for smoother transitions and clearer expression. Pay attention to article usage, especially when referring to specific nouns ("how many carbon dioxide discharges" could be "the amount of carbon dioxide emissions"). Additionally, strive for more precise and concise phrasing to avoid redundancy and improve overall clarity. Overall, maintaining this level of proficiency and addressing minor errors can lead to consistent Band 7 performance.

Bài sửa mẫu

The line graph presents data on the average carbon dioxide emissions per person in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy, and Portugal spanning the period from 1967 to 2007.

Overall, it is evident that carbon dioxide emissions per person exhibited divergent trends among the four countries over the 40-year period. Notably, Portugal and Italy experienced an upward trajectory, whereas the United Kingdom and Sweden witnessed a decline.

Beginning with the United Kingdom, carbon dioxide emissions per person peaked at approximately 11 tonnes in 1967 before stabilizing at this level until 1977. Subsequently, there was a gradual decline, reaching just under 9 tonnes by 2007.

In contrast, Sweden began the period with emissions of around 9 tonnes per person, reaching over 10 tonnes by 1977 before declining to below 6 tonnes by the end of the period, aligning with the United Kingdom’s emissions in 2007.

Moving to Italy, emissions started at over 4 tonnes per person in 1967, surged to below 8 tonnes by 1997, and remained relatively constant until 2007.

Portugal exhibited the lowest emissions throughout the period, starting at approximately 1 tonne per person in 1967, rising to over 5 tonnes by 1997, and then fluctuating around 6 tonnes, similar to Sweden, by the end of the period.