The graph below shows the production levels of the main kinds of fuel in the UK between 1981 and 2000. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparison where relevant.

The line graph illustrates the energy production from three main fuel types in the UK between 1981 and 2000.
Overall, while petroleum and natural gas production saw an upward trend, coal production experienced a decline. Throughout the entire period, petroleum had the highest production levels compared to the other two.
In 1981, petroleum production exceeded 90 energy units, making it the top category. Meanwhile, coal ranked second with 80 energy units, which was double the production of natural gas. From 1981 onwards , petroleum reached a peak with 140 energy units before declining to 100 energy units in 1991. In contrast, coal took less than 40 energy units, which was the lowest, but stayed above that level for the following decade. Shifting focus to natural gas, it grew steadily during the initial decade with about 40 energy units at the end of this period.
Throughout the remainder of the period, petroleum production rose rapidly with approximately 140 energy units in the end of the 2000. Coversely, the trend for coal was largely declining, with production dropping to around 40 energy units by 2000. Notably, since 1991, natural gas production increased quickly surpassing coal as the second most common fuel with 100 energy units by the end of this decade.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"The line graph illustrates" -> "The line graph depicts"
Explanation: "Depicts" is a more precise and formal term than "illustrates," which is commonly used in academic writing to describe the representation of data in graphs.
"fuel types" -> "energy sources"
Explanation: "Energy sources" is a more specific and academically appropriate term than "fuel types," which is somewhat vague and less commonly used in formal contexts.
"saw an upward trend" -> "experienced an upward trend"
Explanation: "Experienced" is more precise and formal than "saw," which is somewhat colloquial for academic writing.
"Throughout the entire period" -> "Throughout the entire duration"
Explanation: "Duration" is a more formal term than "period," which is often used in more general contexts.
"petroleum production exceeded 90 energy units" -> "petroleum production surpassed 90 energy units"
Explanation: "Surpassed" is a more precise verb than "exceeded" in this context, indicating a clear increase beyond a benchmark.
"making it the top category" -> "making it the leading category"
Explanation: "Leading" is more specific and formal than "top," which can be vague and informal in academic writing.
"From 1981 onwards" -> "From 1981 onward"
Explanation: "Onward" is the correct form when used as an adverb to indicate continuation in time.
"took less than 40 energy units" -> "registered fewer than 40 energy units"
Explanation: "Registered" is a more formal and precise verb than "took" in this context, indicating measurement or recording.
"stayed above that level for the following decade" -> "remained above that level throughout the subsequent decade"
Explanation: "Remained" is more formal and precise than "stayed," and "subsequent" is more appropriate than "following" in formal writing.
"rose rapidly" -> "increased rapidly"
Explanation: "Increased" is a more specific and formal term than "rose," which can be seen as colloquial.
"approximately 140 energy units in the end of the 2000" -> "approximately 140 energy units by the end of the 2000"
Explanation: Adding "by" clarifies the relationship between the time and the action, improving readability and formality.
"Coversely" -> "Conversely"
Explanation: "Conversely" is the correct spelling, enhancing the academic tone of the text.
"dropping to around 40 energy units by 2000" -> "decreasing to approximately 40 energy units by 2000"
Explanation: "Decreasing" is a more precise verb than "dropping," and "approximately" is more formal than "around."
"quickly surpassing coal as the second most common fuel" -> "rapidly surpassing coal as the second most prevalent energy source"
Explanation: "Prevalent" is more precise and formal than "common," and "energy source" is more specific than "fuel."

These changes enhance the formality, precision, and clarity of the text, aligning it more closely with academic writing standards.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7

Explanation: The essay provides a clear overview of the main trends in the graph, highlighting the overall upward trend in petroleum and natural gas production and the decline in coal production. It also presents key features, such as the peak in petroleum production in the mid-1980s and the overtaking of coal by natural gas in the late 1990s. However, the essay could be more fully extended by providing more specific details about the changes in production levels over time.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more specific details about the changes in production levels over time. For example, the essay could state that petroleum production increased from 90 energy units in 1981 to 140 energy units in 1986, before declining to 100 energy units in 1991. Similarly, the essay could state that natural gas production increased from 40 energy units in 1981 to 100 energy units in 2000. By providing more specific details, the essay would be more informative and would demonstrate a better understanding of the data.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay arranges information and ideas coherently, presenting a clear overall progression from the introduction to the conclusion. However, while cohesive devices are used effectively, there are instances of mechanical cohesion, particularly in the transitions between sentences. The referencing could be clearer, especially when discussing the production levels of different fuels. Paragraphing is present but could be more logically structured to enhance clarity.

How to improve: To achieve a higher score, the writer should focus on improving the logical flow between sentences and paragraphs. This can be done by using a wider range of cohesive devices and ensuring that references to previous information are clear and precise. Additionally, enhancing the organization of paragraphs to clearly separate different ideas or trends will contribute to better coherence.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary appropriate for the task, using terms like "illustrates," "production," "upward trend," and "decline." However, it attempts to use less common vocabulary, such as "exceeded" and "surpassing," but with some inaccuracies in word choice and collocation (e.g., "the top category" could be more precisely expressed). There are also several minor errors in spelling and word formation (e.g., "Coversely" should be "Conversely," and "the end of the 2000" should be "the end of 2000"). These errors do not significantly impede communication but do detract from the overall lexical sophistication.

How to improve: To enhance the lexical resource score, the writer should aim to use a wider range of vocabulary with greater precision and fewer errors. This includes practicing the correct use of less common lexical items and ensuring accurate spelling and word formation. Additionally, incorporating more varied expressions and synonyms could help avoid repetition and improve the overall fluency and flexibility of vocabulary usage.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, providing a clear overview of the data presented in the graph. However, there are noticeable grammatical errors and issues with punctuation that occasionally hinder communication. For instance, phrases like "in the end of the 2000" should be corrected to "at the end of 2000," and "Coversely" is a typographical error that disrupts the flow. While the overall meaning is conveyed, these errors suggest that the writer has not fully mastered grammatical accuracy.

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

Grammar and Punctuation: Review and correct grammatical structures and punctuation usage to reduce errors and improve clarity.
Complex Structures: Incorporate a wider variety of complex sentence structures while ensuring accuracy.
Proofreading: Allocate time to proofread the essay to catch typographical errors and awkward phrasing before submission.

Bài sửa mẫu

The line graph illustrates the energy production from three main fuel types in the UK between 1981 and 2000. Overall, while petroleum and natural gas production exhibited an upward trend, coal production experienced a decline. Throughout the entire period, petroleum maintained the highest production levels compared to the other two fuels.

In 1981, petroleum production exceeded 90 energy units, making it the leading category. Meanwhile, coal ranked second with 80 energy units, which was double the production of natural gas. From 1981 onwards, petroleum reached a peak of 140 energy units before declining to 100 energy units in 1991. In contrast, coal produced less than 40 energy units, the lowest among the three, but remained above that level for the following decade. Shifting focus to natural gas, it grew steadily during the initial decade, reaching about 40 energy units by the end of this period.

Throughout the remainder of the period, petroleum production rose rapidly, reaching approximately 140 energy units by the end of 2000. Conversely, the trend for coal was predominantly declining, with production dropping to around 40 energy units by 2000. Notably, since 1991, natural gas production increased significantly, surpassing coal to become the second most common fuel, with 100 energy units by the end of this decade.