The graph below shows four methods of dealing with waste in four countries. Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant.

The given bar chart depicts how the contribution of four approaches in litter tackling varied across four distinct nations. Overall, almost all surveyed nations heavily relied on landfilling to solve trash issues, especially in the UK, with the exception of the Netherlands where recycling played the main role in addressing this issue.
Both the Netherlands and the UK suffer a significant reliance on one particular approach in solving trash. This approach of the former is recycling, accounting for nearly 70% of the total eliminated waste, seven-fold higher than that of remaining approaches hovering around 10%. The percentage of landfilling in the UK closely followed that of recycling in the Netherlands, over 65%. However, recycling and chemical use was only responsible for around 15% waste each and an even lower proportion under 5% was registered in burning waste.
Moving on to the remaining regions, landfilling in Italy and Spain saw a similar percentage of 40% of the total waste. In Italy, other approaches formed about 20% each with a minor discrepancy among them and equaling half of the landfilling figure. In contrast, there was a wide disparity among three other approaches in Spain. In detail, burning trash comprised 30%, approximately doubling the recycling litter at slightly over 10%, and the remaining of nearly 20% was used as chemicals.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"litter tackling" -> "waste management"
Explanation: The term "litter tackling" is informal and vague. "Waste management" is a more precise and formal term commonly used in academic and professional contexts to describe the handling and disposal of waste.
"heavily relied on" -> "primarily relied on"
Explanation: "Heavily relied on" is somewhat informal and imprecise. "Primarily relied on" is more formal and accurately conveys the dominant use of a particular method.
"solving trash issues" -> "addressing waste management issues"
Explanation: "Solving trash issues" is colloquial and lacks specificity. "Addressing waste management issues" is more formal and clearly defines the context.
"seven-fold higher" -> "seven times higher"
Explanation: "Seven-fold higher" is less common and slightly awkward in formal writing. "Seven times higher" is more straightforward and commonly used in academic texts.
"hovering around" -> "ranging from"
Explanation: "Hovering around" is informal and vague. "Ranging from" is more precise and appropriate for academic writing, indicating a range of values.
"the percentage of landfilling in the UK closely followed that of recycling in the Netherlands" -> "the proportion of landfilling in the UK was comparable to that of recycling in the Netherlands"
Explanation: The original phrase is awkward and unclear. The revised version clarifies the comparison and uses "proportion" which is more specific in this context.
"recycling and chemical use was only responsible for around 15% waste each" -> "recycling and chemical use accounted for approximately 15% of the waste each"
Explanation: The original phrase is grammatically incorrect and unclear. The revision corrects the grammar and clarifies the meaning.
"an even lower proportion under 5%" -> "a significantly lower proportion, less than 5%"
Explanation: "An even lower proportion under 5%" is awkward and unclear. "A significantly lower proportion, less than 5%" is clearer and maintains formal tone.
"Moving on to the remaining regions" -> "Moving to the remaining regions"
Explanation: "Moving on to" is slightly informal and conversational. "Moving to" is more direct and appropriate for academic writing.
"landfilling in Italy and Spain saw a similar percentage of 40% of the total waste" -> "landfilling in Italy and Spain accounted for a similar 40% of the total waste"
Explanation: The original phrase is verbose and slightly informal. The revision simplifies and formalizes the sentence structure.
"other approaches formed about 20% each" -> "other approaches accounted for approximately 20% each"
Explanation: "Formed" is less precise and informal in this context. "Accounted for" is more appropriate for discussing proportions in formal writing.
"the remaining of nearly 20%" -> "the remaining approximately 20%"
Explanation: "The remaining of nearly 20%" is grammatically incorrect. "The remaining approximately 20%" corrects this and maintains formal tone.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay provides an overview of the main features of the graph, but the information is not always presented in a clear and concise way. For example, the essay states that "almost all surveyed nations heavily relied on landfilling to solve trash issues," but this is not entirely accurate, as the Netherlands relies heavily on recycling. The essay also presents some irrelevant details, such as the fact that the percentage of landfilling in the UK is "over 65%," which is not a key feature of the graph.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing a clearer overview of the main features of the graph and by focusing on the most important information. The essay could also be made more concise by removing irrelevant details. For example, the essay could simply state that the Netherlands relies heavily on recycling, rather than stating that it is "seven-fold higher than that of remaining approaches hovering around 10%."

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay presents information and ideas in a coherent manner, with a clear overall progression from the introduction to the body paragraphs. The main features of the graph are summarized, and comparisons are made between the countries. However, while cohesive devices are used effectively, there are instances where cohesion within and between sentences is somewhat mechanical or unclear. For example, the transition between discussing the Netherlands and the UK could be smoother. Additionally, the paragraphing is present but not always logical, as some ideas could be better organized to enhance clarity.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on improving the logical flow of ideas between paragraphs and within sentences. This can be done by using a wider range of cohesive devices more naturally, ensuring that each paragraph clearly relates to the overall argument or comparison being made. Additionally, refining the structure of paragraphs to group similar ideas together would enhance coherence and clarity.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a sufficient range of vocabulary that allows for flexibility and precision in conveying the information presented in the graph. The use of terms like "contribution," "approaches," "landfilling," and "recycling" shows an awareness of the topic-specific vocabulary. The writer attempts to use less common lexical items, such as "litter tackling" and "chemical use," which indicates an effort to enhance the lexical resource. However, there are occasional inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, such as "the contribution of four approaches in litter tackling varied" which could be more clearly expressed. Additionally, there are minor errors in phrasing and some awkward constructions that detract from the overall fluency. These factors prevent a higher score.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on expanding their vocabulary range further and ensuring that less common lexical items are used accurately. Additionally, improving the naturalness and fluency of expressions will enhance the overall quality of the essay. Paying attention to collocations and refining sentence structures can help reduce awkward phrasing and improve clarity. Regular practice with varied topics and receiving feedback can also aid in developing a more sophisticated lexical resource.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, which is characteristic of a Band 6 score. While the writer attempts to use a variety of structures, there are noticeable errors in grammar and punctuation, such as "the contribution of four approaches in litter tackling varied" which could be more clearly expressed. Additionally, phrases like "the remaining of nearly 20% was used as chemicals" are awkward and could lead to confusion. However, these errors do not significantly impede overall communication, which aligns with the criteria for Band 6.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on increasing the accuracy of their grammatical structures and punctuation. This could involve proofreading for common errors and ensuring that complex sentences are constructed correctly. Additionally, expanding the range of vocabulary and using more varied sentence structures could enhance the overall quality of the writing. Practicing with more complex grammatical forms and ensuring clarity in expression will also be beneficial.

Bài sửa mẫu

The given bar chart depicts how the contribution of four approaches to waste management varied across four distinct nations. Overall, almost all surveyed countries heavily relied on landfilling to address waste issues, particularly in the UK, with the exception of the Netherlands, where recycling played a predominant role in tackling this problem.

Both the Netherlands and the UK exhibit a significant reliance on one particular method for waste management. In the Netherlands, recycling accounts for nearly 70% of the total waste eliminated, which is seven times higher than the remaining methods, each hovering around 10%. The percentage of landfilling in the UK closely follows that of recycling in the Netherlands, at over 65%. However, recycling and chemical treatment were only responsible for around 15% of waste each, while an even lower proportion of under 5% was recorded for waste incineration.

Turning to the other regions, landfilling in Italy and Spain showed a similar percentage of 40% of the total waste. In Italy, other methods constituted about 20% each, with minor discrepancies among them, collectively amounting to half of the landfilling figure. In contrast, there was a notable disparity among the three other methods in Spain. Specifically, waste incineration comprised 30%, approximately doubling the recycling figure of slightly over 10%, while the remaining nearly 20% was attributed to chemical treatment.