The graph below shows the consumption of fish and some different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The graph below shows the consumption of fish and some different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The graph illustrates how much fish and some different kinds of meat eaten in a country of Europe from 1979 to 2004

Overall, there was a decline in the amount of beef, lamb, fish consumed; meanwhile, chicken had a tendency to rise from 1989 onwards with the highest figure

The figure for beef used started at roughly 220 grams per person (GPP), after which it saw a decrease to approximately 200 gpp in 1989 and continued gradually reducing to just over 100 gpp in the end of this period. Conversely, chicken rose at under 150 gpp to shy of 250 gpp and held the highest place consumed in all kinds of meat examined

Precisely 150 gpp of lamb was eaten, with some progressive fluctuations and final decline from about 100 gpp in 1989 to around 54 gpp in 2004. Similarly, the figure for fish fluctuated in the range from around 52 gpp to 50 gpp from 1979 to 1984, before ending the period at about 48 gpp

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"The graph illustrates how much fish and some different kinds of meat eaten in a country of Europe from 1979 to 2004" -> "The graph depicts the consumption of fish and various types of meat in a European country from 1979 to 2004"
Explanation: The original phrase "how much fish and some different kinds of meat eaten in a country of Europe" is grammatically incorrect and vague. The revised version corrects the grammar and clarifies the subject by specifying "consumption" and "a European country," enhancing the academic tone.
"there was a decline in the amount of beef, lamb, fish consumed" -> "there was a decline in the consumption of beef, lamb, and fish"
Explanation: The original phrase "the amount of beef, lamb, fish consumed" is awkwardly phrased and lacks clarity. The revision corrects this by using "consumption" and adding "and" to properly connect the items, aligning with formal writing standards.
"meantime" -> "meanwhile"
Explanation: "Meantime" is less commonly used and can be confusing in formal writing. "Meanwhile" is the standard term and is more appropriate for academic texts.
"rose at under 150 gpp to shy of 250 gpp" -> "rose to approximately 250 gpp, from under 150 gpp"
Explanation: The original phrase "rose at under 150 gpp to shy of 250 gpp" is unclear and informal. The suggested change clarifies the direction of change and uses "approximately" to indicate the proximity to the figures, which is more precise and formal.
"held the highest place consumed in all kinds of meat examined" -> "held the highest level of consumption among all types of meat examined"
Explanation: The original phrase "held the highest place consumed" is awkward and unclear. The revision clarifies the meaning by using "level of consumption" and "types of meat," which are more precise and appropriate for formal writing.
"Precisely 150 gpp of lamb was eaten" -> "Precisely 150 gpp of lamb was consumed"
Explanation: "Was eaten" is less formal and less specific than "was consumed," which is the standard term in academic and scientific contexts.
"final decline from about 100 gpp in 1989 to around 54 gpp in 2004" -> "a decline from approximately 100 gpp in 1989 to around 54 gpp in 2004"
Explanation: The addition of "a" before "decline" corrects the grammatical structure, making the sentence more formal and precise.
"Similarly, the figure for fish fluctuated in the range from around 52 gpp to 50 gpp from 1979 to 1984, before ending the period at about 48 gpp" -> "Similarly, the figure for fish fluctuated between approximately 52 gpp and 50 gpp from 1979 to 1984, ending at around 48 gpp"
Explanation: The original phrase is verbose and awkwardly structured. The revision simplifies and clarifies the description, using "between" for a more precise range specification and "ending at" for a more formal conclusion.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay provides an overview of the main trends in the graph, but the information is not always presented in a clear and concise way. For example, the essay states that "chicken had a tendency to rise from 1989 onwards with the highest figure", but it does not provide any specific figures to support this claim. The essay also includes some irrelevant details, such as the statement that "Precisely 150 gpp of lamb was eaten".

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more specific figures to support the overview of the main trends. The essay could also be made more concise by removing irrelevant details. For example, the essay could simply state that "chicken consumption increased from 1989 onwards, reaching a peak of approximately 250 gpp in 2004".

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 the writer attempts to summarize the data and make comparisons, the structure is somewhat disjointed, and the ideas do not flow logically from one to the next. The use of cohesive devices is inadequate, leading to some repetition and confusion in referencing. Additionally, the paragraphing is not always clear or effective, which detracts from the overall coherence of the essay.
How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, the writer should focus on creating a clearer structure with logical progression between ideas. This can be achieved by using more varied and appropriate cohesive devices, ensuring that each paragraph has a clear central topic, and improving the overall flow of information. Additionally, refining the use of paragraphing to separate distinct ideas or comparisons more effectively would help clarify the essay’s organization.

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 convey information about the graph, the vocabulary used is basic and repetitive, which detracts from the overall effectiveness of the communication. There are noticeable errors in word formation, such as "used" instead of "was consumed," and inaccuracies in spelling, such as "GPP" instead of "g per person." These errors can cause some difficulty for the reader in understanding the intended meaning.

How to improve: To enhance the Lexical Resource score, the writer should aim to incorporate a wider range of vocabulary, including less common lexical items that are relevant to the topic. This could involve using synonyms for "consume" (e.g., "ingest," "partake") and varying expressions to describe trends (e.g., "witnessed a decline," "experienced an increase"). Additionally, careful attention should be paid to spelling and word formation to avoid errors that impede communication. Practicing the use of collocations and idiomatic expressions relevant to the topic will also contribute to a more sophisticated lexical range.

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 performance. While there are some grammatical errors and awkward phrasing, they do not significantly impede communication. The essay presents the main features of the graph and makes relevant comparisons, but the overall coherence and clarity could be improved.

How to improve:

Enhance Sentence Variety: Incorporate a wider range of complex sentence structures to improve grammatical range. This could involve using more subordinate clauses and varied sentence beginnings.
Minimize Errors: Pay closer attention to grammatical accuracy, particularly with subject-verb agreement and article usage. Proofreading for minor errors can help achieve a higher score.
Improve Clarity: Ensure that comparisons and trends are clearly articulated. For instance, clarify the time frame and the significance of the data presented to enhance the overall coherence of the essay.
Use Precise Vocabulary: Employ more precise vocabulary to describe trends and figures, which can help convey information more effectively and demonstrate a higher level of lexical resource.

Bài sửa mẫu

The graph illustrates the consumption of fish and various types of meat in a European country from 1979 to 2004.

Overall, there was a decline in the consumption of beef, lamb, and fish; meanwhile, chicken exhibited a tendency to rise from 1989 onwards, reaching the highest figure among all types of meat.

The figure for beef consumption started at roughly 220 grams per person (GPP), after which it saw a decrease to approximately 200 GPP in 1989 and continued to gradually reduce to just over 100 GPP by the end of this period. Conversely, chicken consumption rose from under 150 GPP to just shy of 250 GPP, securing the highest position among all types of meat examined.

Approximately 150 GPP of lamb was consumed, with some progressive fluctuations followed by a final decline from about 100 GPP in 1989 to around 54 GPP in 2004. Similarly, the figure for fish fluctuated in the range from around 52 GPP to 50 GPP from 1979 to 1984, before ending the period at about 48 GPP.