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

The given line graph compares the recycling rates of paper and cardboard, glass containers, aluminum cans, and plastics between 1982 and 2010 in a specific country.
Overall, it is apparent that while the recycling rates of glass containers, and aluminum cans showed an upward trend, the rate for plastics remained considerably lower throughout the period observed. In the meantime, the tendency to recycle paper and cardboard seemed to lose its popularity after a decade while still positioning the highest out of four.
In 1982, paper and cardboard‘s recycling percentage stood at approximately 65%. After that, this figure underwent a fluctuation with an upward trend to a peak of 80% by 1994, followed by a steady decline to about 70% at the end of the period.
Conversely, initially staying at the lower point of around 50%, the recycling proportion of glass containers declined steeply to roughly 40% in 1990 before experiencing significant growth and reaching around 45% by 2010. Similarly, aluminum cans, which began to emerge later in 1986, witnessed a dramatic rise in their recycling percentage throughout the period, hitting approximately 45% in 2010.
By contrast, as shown latest in the period, the initial recycling rate of plastics was negligible. During the next 20 years, plastics recycling minimally gained popularity among residents, climbing to almost 10% in 2010.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"the recycling rates of paper and cardboard, glass containers, aluminum cans, and plastics" -> "the recycling rates of paper and cardboard, glass containers, aluminum cans, and plastic materials"
Explanation: "Plastic materials" is more precise than "plastics," which can be vague. This change enhances clarity and aligns with formal academic language.
"it is apparent that while the recycling rates of glass containers, and aluminum cans showed an upward trend" -> "it is evident that while the recycling rates of glass containers and aluminum cans exhibited an upward trend"
Explanation: "Evident" is a more formal alternative to "apparent," and "exhibited" is a more precise verb than "showed," enhancing the academic tone.
"the tendency to recycle paper and cardboard seemed to lose its popularity" -> "the trend of recycling paper and cardboard appeared to decline in popularity"
Explanation: "Trend" is a more precise term than "tendency," and "appeared to decline in popularity" is clearer and more formal than "seemed to lose its popularity."
"this figure underwent a fluctuation with an upward trend" -> "this figure experienced fluctuations with an overall upward trend"
Explanation: "Experienced fluctuations" is more precise than "underwent a fluctuation," and "overall" clarifies that the upward trend is a general observation rather than a continuous increase.
"Conversely, initially staying at the lower point of around 50%" -> "Conversely, initially remaining at a lower level of approximately 50%"
Explanation: "Remaining" is a more formal choice than "staying," and "approximately" is a more precise term than "around," enhancing the academic tone.
"the recycling proportion of glass containers declined steeply" -> "the recycling rate of glass containers decreased sharply"
Explanation: "Rate" is a more standard term in academic writing than "proportion," and "decreased sharply" is a more formal expression than "declined steeply."
"witnessed a dramatic rise in their recycling percentage" -> "experienced a significant increase in their recycling rate"
Explanation: "Experienced" is more formal than "witnessed," and "significant increase" is a more precise phrase than "dramatic rise," improving clarity and formality.
"as shown latest in the period" -> "as illustrated in the later stages of the period"
Explanation: "Illustrated" is a more formal verb than "shown," and "later stages" is clearer and more precise than "latest in the period."
"the initial recycling rate of plastics was negligible" -> "the initial recycling rate for plastic materials was minimal"
Explanation: "For plastic materials" is more precise than "of plastics," and "minimal" is a more formal term than "negligible," enhancing the academic tone.
"During the next 20 years, plastics recycling minimally gained popularity among residents" -> "Over the subsequent 20 years, plastic recycling experienced only modest gains in popularity among residents"
Explanation: "Over the subsequent" is more formal than "During the next," and "experienced only modest gains" is clearer and more precise than "minimally gained popularity."

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7

Explanation: The essay provides a clear overview of the main trends in the recycling rates of four materials. It highlights the key features of each material, including the initial recycling rate, the overall trend, and the final recycling rate. The essay also makes comparisons between the materials, noting that paper and cardboard had the highest recycling rate, while plastics had the lowest.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more specific details about the trends and comparisons. For example, the essay could state that the recycling rate of paper and cardboard peaked in 1994, while the recycling rate of glass containers increased steadily after 1990. The essay could also provide more specific comparisons between the materials, such as stating that the recycling rate of aluminum cans was higher than the recycling rate of glass containers in 2010.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation: The essay logically organizes information and ideas, presenting a clear progression throughout. It effectively uses a range of cohesive devices, such as transitional phrases and comparative language, to connect ideas. Each paragraph presents a clear central topic, with the first paragraph introducing the overall trends, followed by detailed descriptions of each material’s recycling rates. However, there are instances of minor awkwardness in phrasing and some overuse of certain cohesive devices, which slightly detracts from the overall fluidity.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer could focus on enhancing the variety and precision of cohesive devices used, ensuring they are not repetitive. Additionally, refining the paragraphing to ensure that each paragraph has a distinct focus without overlapping ideas could improve clarity. Finally, ensuring that all sentences flow smoothly without awkward phrasing would enhance coherence and cohesion.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary relevant to the task, effectively communicating the trends in recycling rates. However, there are attempts to use less common vocabulary that occasionally lack precision, such as "underwent a fluctuation" and "negligible," which may not fully convey the intended meaning. Additionally, there are some errors in word formation, such as "paper and cardboard‘s recycling percentage," which should be "recycling percentage of paper and cardboard." These errors do not impede communication but do indicate a need for improvement in lexical accuracy.

How to improve: To enhance the lexical resource score, the writer should focus on using a wider range of vocabulary with greater precision, ensuring that less common lexical items are used correctly. Additionally, practicing spelling and word formation accuracy will help in reducing errors. Expanding the vocabulary related to data description and trends could also contribute to a more sophisticated expression of ideas.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, effectively conveying the information from the graph. However, there are noticeable grammatical errors and some awkward phrasing that detract from overall clarity. For instance, the phrase "the recycling rates of glass containers, and aluminum cans" incorrectly includes a comma before "and," which is unnecessary. Additionally, phrases like "the tendency to recycle paper and cardboard seemed to lose its popularity" could be expressed more clearly. While the errors do not significantly impede communication, they are frequent enough to warrant a score of 6.

How to improve: To enhance the grammatical range and accuracy, the writer should focus on the following areas:

Sentence Structure: Incorporate a wider variety of complex sentence structures while ensuring they are grammatically correct.
Error Reduction: Proofread the essay to identify and correct grammatical errors, particularly with punctuation and subject-verb agreement.
Clarity and Precision: Aim for clearer expressions of ideas, avoiding awkward phrasing that may confuse the reader. Using more precise vocabulary can also help convey the intended meaning more effectively.

Bài sửa mẫu

In 1982, the recycling percentage of paper and cardboard stood at approximately 65%. Following this, the figure experienced fluctuations, rising to a peak of 80% by 1994, before undergoing a steady decline to about 70% by the end of the period.

Conversely, starting at a lower point of around 50%, the recycling proportion of glass containers declined steeply to roughly 40% in 1990, before experiencing significant growth, reaching around 45% by 2010. Similarly, aluminum cans, which began to be recycled in 1986, witnessed a dramatic rise in their recycling percentage throughout the period, hitting approximately 45% in 2010.

In contrast, as indicated at the end of the period, the initial recycling rate of plastics was negligible. Over the next 20 years, plastics recycling gained minimal popularity among residents, climbing to almost 10% by 2010.