The graph below shows the proportion of four different materials that were recycled from 1982 to 2010 in a particular country.

The line graph illustrates the recycling rate for four distinctive materials. which were paper and cardboard, glass containers, aluminium cans and plastics in a country from 1982 to 2010.
Overall, despite some fluctuations, there were upward trends in the figures for paper and cardboard, aluminium cans and glass containers during the surveyed period, with the cans witnessing the most dramatic rise over the duration. Furthermore, the quantity of plastic waste recycled remained relatively stable throughout the timescale given.
Evidently, the percentage of paper and cardboard selected for recycling process started at exceeding 60%, after which it experienced a considerable increase to precisely 80% in 1994, before ending the period with a tenfold decline to 70%. A similar pattern could be seen in the proportion of glass products which grew rapidly from exactly 50% to 60% over two decades.
Approximately 3% of aluminium cans were recycled in 1986, with a fourfold surge recorded to reach north of 40% in 2010. Meanwhile, the statistics for plastics levelled of at around 5% towards the end of the period.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"distinctive materials" -> "distinct materials"
Explanation: "Distinctive" implies something unique or characteristic, which is not the intended meaning here. "Distinct" is the correct term to indicate separate or different materials.
"which were" -> "which were"
Explanation: The phrase "which were" is grammatically correct and maintains the formal tone of academic writing.
"despite some fluctuations, there were upward trends" -> "despite some fluctuations, there was an upward trend"
Explanation: "There was an upward trend" is grammatically correct and more precise, indicating a consistent direction rather than multiple trends.
"the cans witnessing the most dramatic rise" -> "aluminium cans experienced the most significant increase"
Explanation: "Witnessing" is somewhat informal and vague; "experienced" is more precise and appropriate for academic writing. "Significant increase" is a more formal phrase than "dramatic rise."
"the quantity of plastic waste recycled remained relatively stable" -> "the quantity of plastic waste recycled remained relatively constant"
Explanation: "Constant" is a more precise term than "stable" in this context, emphasizing the consistency of the data.
"selected for recycling process" -> "recycled"
Explanation: "Selected for recycling process" is awkward and verbose; "recycled" is straightforward and appropriate.
"started at exceeding 60%" -> "began exceeding 60%"
Explanation: "Started at exceeding" is grammatically incorrect; "began exceeding" corrects this by placing the verb in the correct position.
"tenfold decline" -> "tenfold decrease"
Explanation: "Decrease" is more commonly used in academic contexts to describe reductions in quantities or rates, whereas "decline" can imply a more negative connotation.
"A similar pattern could be seen in the proportion of glass products" -> "Similarly, the proportion of glass products exhibited a similar pattern"
Explanation: "Similarly" is more formal and appropriate for academic writing than "A similar pattern could be seen."
"exactly 50%" -> "approximately 50%"
Explanation: "Exactly" is too precise and may not accurately reflect the data; "approximately" is more suitable for academic writing, indicating a close but not exact match.
"north of 40%" -> "exceeding 40%"
Explanation: "North of" is an idiom and too informal for academic writing; "exceeding" is straightforward and formal.
"the statistics for plastics levelled of at around 5%" -> "the statistics for plastics remained around 5%"
Explanation: "Levelled of at" is grammatically incorrect and unclear; "remained around" is grammatically correct and clearer.

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

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6

Explanation: The essay provides an overview of the main trends in the graph, but the details are not always accurate. For example, the essay states that the percentage of paper and cardboard recycled "ended the period with a tenfold decline to 70%," but the graph shows that the percentage was actually around 75%. The essay also states that the proportion of glass products "grew rapidly from exactly 50% to 60% over two decades," but the graph shows that the percentage was closer to 55% in 1982 and 60% in 2010.

How to improve: The writer should focus on providing accurate information from the graph. They should also avoid using vague language, such as "considerable increase" and "rapidly grew." Instead, they should use specific numbers and percentages to describe the trends in the graph.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay arranges information and ideas coherently, and there is a clear overall progression from the introduction to the conclusion. However, while cohesive devices are used effectively, there are instances where cohesion between sentences is somewhat mechanical, and referencing could be clearer. The paragraphing is present but not always logical, particularly in the way ideas are grouped and developed.
How to improve: To enhance coherence and cohesion, the writer should focus on improving the logical flow of ideas within paragraphs. This can be achieved by ensuring that each paragraph clearly relates to a single central topic and that transitions between sentences are smoother. Additionally, varying the use of cohesive devices and ensuring that referencing is clear and appropriate will strengthen the overall coherence of the essay.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary suitable for the task, with some attempts to use less common lexical items. However, there are noticeable inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, such as "selected for recycling process" which should be "selected for the recycling process," and "levelled of" which should be "levelled off." Additionally, there are some errors in spelling and word formation, such as "tenfold decline" which is not the correct term for a decrease. These issues do not completely impede communication but do affect the overall clarity and precision of the essay.
How to improve: To enhance the lexical resource score, the writer should focus on using a wider range of vocabulary with greater precision. They should also pay attention to collocations and common phrases, ensuring that word choices are appropriate for the context. Reducing spelling errors and improving word formation will also contribute to a higher score. Engaging with more advanced vocabulary and practicing its correct usage in context can help achieve this improvement.

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. While there are some effective structures, the essay contains several grammatical errors and awkward phrases that occasionally hinder clarity, such as "the quantity of plastic waste recycled remained relatively stable throughout the timescale given" and "the statistics for plastics levelled of at around 5%." These errors do not severely impede communication, but they are noticeable and detract from the overall accuracy.
How to improve: To enhance the grammatical range and accuracy, the writer should focus on reducing errors in sentence structure and punctuation. Incorporating a wider variety of complex sentences and ensuring that all sentences are grammatically correct will help improve the score. Additionally, proofreading for common mistakes and awkward phrasing can enhance clarity and coherence in the writing.

Bài sửa mẫu

The line graph illustrates the recycling rates for four distinctive materials: paper and cardboard, glass containers, aluminium cans, and plastics in a country from 1982 to 2010. Overall, despite some fluctuations, there were upward trends in the figures for paper and cardboard, aluminium cans, and glass containers during the surveyed period, with the cans witnessing the most dramatic rise. Furthermore, the quantity of plastic waste recycled remained relatively stable throughout the given timescale.

Evidently, the percentage of paper and cardboard selected for the recycling process started at over 60%, after which it experienced a considerable increase to precisely 80% in 1994, before ending the period with a decline to 70%. A similar pattern can be seen in the proportion of glass products, which grew steadily from exactly 50% to 60% over two decades.

Approximately 3% of aluminium cans were recycled in 1986, with a fourfold surge recorded to reach over 40% in 2010. Meanwhile, the statistics for plastics levelled off at around 5% towards the end of the period.