The graph below shows the pollution levels in London between 1600 and 2000. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The graph below shows the pollution levels in London between 1600 and 2000.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The gien bar line chart illutrates two different emissions causing air pollutionin London from 1600 to 2000.
In gerneral, the amount pf Sulphur dioxide in the air was overweighed the remaining emission through the period. Additionally, pullution levels in smoke had the same tendency with sulphuir dioxide.
In 1600, there were approximately 50 micrograms per cubic metre in both of emissions. After 100 years, the amount of sulphur dioxide increased dramatically to more than 750 microgramss. While the figure for smoke increased moderately to nearly 200 micrograms in 1700, from 1700 to 1775, there was a considerable decrease in the statistic of sulphur dioxide, then it rose again and reached the peak of 900 micrograms per cubic metre in 1850. In the same period, the amount of smoke increased stably.
From 1880 to 2000, both the figure for sulphur dioxide and smoke fluctuated considerably. In the first 20 years, the time witnessed the steady decrease in 2 type of emission, which were followed by the dramatical fluctuations from 1900 to 1970, the figures touched the lowest point at 0 micrograms per cubic metre in 2000.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

"gien" -> "given"
Explanation: "Given" is the correct term here, indicating that the chart is provided or presented.
"illutrates" -> "illustrates"
Explanation: "Illustrates" is the correct spelling of the verb meaning to make clear or explain.
"emissions causing air pollutionin" -> "emissions contributing to air pollution in"
Explanation: "Contributing to" is a more precise and formal phrase than "causing" when discussing factors related to air pollution.
"gerneral" -> "general"
Explanation: "General" is the correct spelling of the word meaning widespread or usual.
"pf" -> "of"
Explanation: "Of" is the correct preposition to indicate possession or association.
"Sulphur dioxide" -> "sulfur dioxide"
Explanation: "Sulfur" is the preferred American English spelling, while "sulphur" is more common in British English. Consistency in spelling is essential.
"overweighed" -> "outweighed"
Explanation: "Outweighed" is the appropriate term meaning to be greater or more significant than.
"pullution" -> "pollution"
Explanation: "Pollution" is the correct spelling of the word referring to contaminants in the environment.
"smoke" -> "particulate matter"
Explanation: "Particulate matter" is a more specific and scientific term for the solid and liquid particles suspended in the air, which is often referred to as "smoke."
"in 1600" -> "in the year 1600"
Explanation: Adding "the year" before the specific year provides clarity and formalizes the expression.
"micrograms per cubic metre" -> "micrograms per cubic meter"
Explanation: "Meter" is the American English spelling, while "metre" is the British English spelling. Consistency is key, and "meter" is more commonly used internationally.
"dramatically" -> "dramatically"
Explanation: "Dramatically" is the correct adverb to describe a significant increase or decrease in quantity or quality.
"statistic" -> "level" or "amount"
Explanation: "Statistic" typically refers to a numerical data point or result, while "level" or "amount" is more suitable for describing the quantity of something.
"considerable decrease" -> "significant decrease"
Explanation: "Significant" emphasizes the magnitude or importance of the decrease more effectively than "considerable."
"fluctuated considerably" -> "experienced significant fluctuations"
Explanation: "Experienced significant fluctuations" provides a clearer and more descriptive phrase for changes in levels over time.
"the time witnessed the steady decrease" -> "during this period, a steady decrease was observed"
Explanation: Rearranging the sentence structure and using "during this period" improves clarity and formality.
"dramatical" -> "dramatic"
Explanation: "Dramatic" is the correct adjective form to describe something characterized by sudden and striking events or changes.
"touched the lowest point at" -> "reached the lowest point of"
Explanation: "Reached the lowest point of" is a more precise and idiomatic expression for describing the culmination of a downward trend.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 5

[
Band Score: 5.0
Explanation: The essay generally addresses the task by summarizing the main features of the pollution levels in London between 1600 and 2000. It provides an overview of the trends in sulphur dioxide and smoke emissions over the period. However, there are several issues with accuracy, relevance, and coherence. For example, there are inaccuracies in the description of specific data points, such as the statement that the figures for sulphur dioxide and smoke touched the lowest point at 0 micrograms per cubic meter in 2000, which is not supported by the graph. Additionally, the essay lacks a clear structure and coherent development of ideas, with some information presented in a confusing or repetitive manner.

How to improve: To improve, focus on accurately summarizing the main trends and key features presented in the graph. Ensure that all information provided is relevant and supports the overall summary. Additionally, organize the essay in a clear and logical manner, with each paragraph addressing a specific aspect of the data. Avoid unnecessary repetition and strive for clarity and coherence in your writing.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay presents some organization by dividing the information into paragraphs and attempting to summarize the pollution levels in London between 1600 and 2000. However, there are several coherence and cohesion issues that hinder clarity and progression.

The essay lacks overall progression due to fragmented and sometimes confusing sentences. There are errors in grammar and spelling, such as "gien" instead of "given" and "pullution" instead of "pollution," which affect coherence. Additionally, the essay lacks a clear introduction and conclusion, making it challenging for readers to understand the purpose and context of the information presented.

While the essay attempts to use cohesive devices, they are often inadequate or inaccurately used. For example, the transitions between sentences and paragraphs are abrupt, making it difficult to follow the flow of ideas. The referencing of data is also unclear, leading to confusion about which data points are being discussed.

The paragraphing is inconsistent, with some paragraphs containing multiple ideas and others lacking clear topic sentences. This inconsistency affects the overall organization and coherence of the essay.

How to improve: To improve coherence and cohesion, focus on structuring the essay with a clear introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Ensure that each paragraph has a clear topic sentence and follows a logical progression of ideas. Use cohesive devices such as transitional phrases and pronouns to connect sentences and paragraphs smoothly. Proofread the essay carefully to correct grammatical and spelling errors, which can disrupt coherence. Finally, clarify the referencing of data to make it easier for readers to understand the information presented.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a somewhat limited range of vocabulary, with some repetition and basic word choices. There is an attempt to convey information about pollution levels in London between 1600 and 2000, but the vocabulary used lacks sophistication and variety. Some errors in word choice and word formation are noticeable, which may cause some difficulty for the reader in understanding the message.

How to improve: To improve the lexical resource, the writer should aim to diversify their vocabulary, using more precise and varied terms to describe the data presented in the graph. Additionally, paying attention to spelling and word formation would enhance clarity and coherence. Expanding the range of vocabulary while ensuring accuracy and appropriateness would elevate the essay’s lexical score.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 5

[
Band Score: 5

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a basic ability to use a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, but the accuracy is inconsistent. There are frequent grammatical errors, including issues with spelling, verb agreement, and sentence structure. Punctuation is also faulty in some places. While these errors can cause some difficulty for the reader, the meaning is generally understandable.

How to improve:

Proofread Carefully: Check for spelling errors and correct common mistakes like "gerneral" to "general," "illutrates" to "illustrates," and "dramatically" to "dramatic."
Ensure Correct Verb Tenses: Review and correct verb tense inconsistencies to maintain coherence.
Simplify Complex Structures: While using complex structures is encouraged, it should not come at the cost of clarity. Revisit sentence structure to ensure it is clear and precise.
Punctuation Review: Ensure that punctuation is used correctly, especially commas and periods. Revisit sentences to check for missing or misplaced punctuation marks.
Consistent Use of Vocabulary: Be consistent with terminology and ensure words are used correctly, such as "overweighed" (should be "exceeded") and "pullution" (should be "pollution").
Grammar Resources: Refer to grammar resources to improve your understanding of sentence structure, subject-verb agreement, and complex sentences. This can help in reducing errors and increasing accuracy.
]

Bài sửa mẫu

The provided bar line chart illustrates two distinct emissions contributing to air pollution in London from 1600 to 2000. Overall, Sulphur dioxide levels consistently exceeded those of smoke throughout the period.

In 1600, both emissions stood at approximately 50 micrograms per cubic meter. Over the next century, Sulphur dioxide sharply rose to over 750 micrograms, while smoke levels increased moderately to nearly 200 micrograms by 1700. Subsequently, from 1700 to 1775, there was a notable decline in Sulphur dioxide levels, followed by a resurgence, peaking at 900 micrograms in 1850. During this time, smoke levels remained relatively stable.

Between 1880 and 2000, both Sulphur dioxide and smoke levels exhibited considerable fluctuations. Initially, there was a steady decrease in both emissions over the first two decades. However, from 1900 to 1970, significant fluctuations occurred, with levels reaching their lowest point of 0 micrograms per cubic meter in 2000.