THE GRAPH BELOW SHOWS FOUR METHODS OF DEALING WITH WASTE IN FOUR COUNTRIES. SUMMARISE THE INFORMATION BY SELECTING AND REPORTING THE MAIN FEATURES AND MAKE COMPARISONS WHERE RELEVANT.

The graph illustrates four waste treatments in several countries: Netherlands, Italy, Spain, UK.
Overall, Landfilled is the most common method that use in dealing with waste. But Netherlands use recycle to handle that issue.
Firstly, the percentage of waste landfilled in UK is higher than that in Netherlands by approximately 50%. Meanwhile, Italy and Spain have same the amount of waste landfilled, 40% for each country. On the other hand, with 70% Netherlands topped the list for using recycle to treat waste, followed by Italy at 20%, the Spain and the UK at over 10%.
Secondly, it can easily observe that an almost equal proportion of waste was used as chemicals in Italy, Spain, UK and Netherlands, with a significantly lower proportion, at about 20%. Beside that waste burnt in Spain is triple that in the Netherlands, amounting to 30% compared to 10%. The percentage of waste burnt in Italy is about 20%, while that in the UK at only about 4%.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"use in dealing with waste" -> "used for managing waste"
Explanation: "Use" should be changed to "used" for grammatical correctness, and "managing" is a more precise term in an academic context than "dealing with."
"But Netherlands use recycle to handle that issue." -> "However, the Netherlands utilizes recycling to address this issue."
Explanation: "But" is informal; "However" is more appropriate for academic writing. "The Netherlands" requires the definite article, and "utilizes recycling" is more precise than "use recycle." "Address" is a more formal term than "handle."
"the percentage of waste landfilled in UK" -> "the percentage of waste landfilled in the UK"
Explanation: The definite article "the" is necessary before "UK" for grammatical correctness.
"have same the amount of waste landfilled" -> "have the same amount of waste landfilled"
Explanation: The phrase "same the amount" is incorrect; "the same amount" is the correct form.
"with 70% Netherlands topped the list for using recycle to treat waste" -> "with 70%, the Netherlands topped the list for utilizing recycling to manage waste"
Explanation: A comma is needed after "70%." "Utilizing recycling" is more precise and formal than "using recycle," and "manage" is a better term than "treat."
"the Spain and the UK at over 10%" -> "Spain and the UK at over 10%"
Explanation: The definite article "the" is unnecessary before "Spain."
"it can easily observe that an almost equal proportion of waste was used as chemicals" -> "it is evident that an almost equal proportion of waste was utilized as chemicals"
Explanation: "It can easily observe" is awkward; "it is evident" is a more formal and precise expression. "Utilized" is a more academic term than "used."
"Beside that waste burnt in Spain is triple that in the Netherlands" -> "Furthermore, the amount of waste incinerated in Spain is three times that of the Netherlands"
Explanation: "Beside that" is informal; "Furthermore" is more appropriate. "Burnt" should be replaced with "incinerated" for precision, and "three times that of" is clearer than "triple that in."
"while that in the UK at only about 4%" -> "while that in the UK is only about 4%"
Explanation: The verb "is" is missing, which is necessary for grammatical correctness.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5

Explanation: The essay generally addresses the task by providing an overview of the main features of the graph. However, the essay does not present a clear overview of the main trends or differences in the data. The essay also focuses on details rather than key features, and there is a tendency to recount information mechanically.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing a clearer overview of the main trends in the data. For example, the essay could state that landfilling is the most common method of waste treatment in all four countries, but that the Netherlands has a significantly higher percentage of waste that is recycled. The essay could also highlight the key features of the data, such as the fact that the UK has the highest percentage of waste that is landfilled, and that Spain has the highest percentage of waste that is burnt. The essay should also avoid recounting information mechanically and instead focus on presenting the information in a clear and concise way.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay presents information with some organization, but there is a noticeable lack of overall progression. While it attempts to compare the waste treatment methods across the four countries, the connections between ideas are not always clear, leading to confusion. The use of cohesive devices is inadequate and at times inaccurate, which affects the clarity of the comparisons. Additionally, the paragraphing is inconsistent, with some ideas not being logically grouped together, which detracts from the overall coherence of the essay.

How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, the writer should focus on improving the logical flow of ideas by clearly linking sentences and paragraphs. Using a wider range of cohesive devices appropriately and ensuring that each paragraph has a clear central topic would also help. Additionally, organizing the information in a more structured manner, perhaps by grouping similar ideas together, would improve overall clarity and progression.

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 use some less common vocabulary, such as "landfilled," "recycle," and "burnt," there are noticeable errors in word choice and collocation (e.g., "the most common method that use" should be "that is used"). Additionally, there are issues with grammatical structure and clarity, which can cause some difficulty for the reader. Spelling errors, such as "Beside" instead of "Besides," further detract from the overall quality.

How to improve: To enhance the Lexical Resource score, the writer should focus on expanding their vocabulary and using a wider range of synonyms to avoid repetition. Improving grammatical accuracy and ensuring correct collocations would also help in conveying precise meanings. Additionally, proofreading for spelling and word formation errors would contribute to clearer communication.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a limited range of grammatical structures and attempts to use complex sentences, but these attempts are often inaccurate. There are frequent grammatical errors, such as incorrect verb forms ("use" should be "used"), and issues with sentence structure that can cause confusion for the reader. Punctuation errors are also present, which further detracts from clarity. While the main ideas are communicated, the frequent errors hinder effective communication.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on the following areas:

Expand Grammatical Range: Incorporate a wider variety of sentence structures, including more complex sentences that are grammatically accurate.
Minimize Errors: Proofread the essay to identify and correct grammatical and punctuation errors. This could involve practicing specific grammar rules and seeking feedback on writing.
Clarity and Cohesion: Ensure that ideas are clearly articulated and logically connected. Using linking words and phrases can help improve the flow of the essay.
Practice Writing: Regular practice with different types of prompts can help build confidence and improve overall writing skills.

Bài sửa mẫu

The graph illustrates four waste treatment methods in several countries: the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, and the UK. Overall, landfilling is the most common method used for dealing with waste, while the Netherlands employs recycling as its primary approach.

Firstly, the percentage of waste landfilled in the UK is higher than that in the Netherlands by approximately 50%. Meanwhile, Italy and Spain have the same amount of waste landfilled, with 40% for each country. On the other hand, with 70%, the Netherlands tops the list for using recycling to treat waste, followed by Italy at 20%, and Spain and the UK at just over 10%.

Secondly, it can be easily observed that an almost equal proportion of waste was treated with chemicals in Italy, Spain, the UK, and the Netherlands, with a significantly lower proportion of about 20%. Additionally, the amount of waste burned in Spain is triple that in the Netherlands, amounting to 30% compared to 10%. The percentage of waste burned in Italy is about 20%, while in the UK, it is only around 4%.