The pie charts below show the comparison of different kinds of energy production in France in two years, 1995 and 2005. Report the main features and make comparisons where relevant.

The pie charts below show the comparison of different kinds of energy production in France in two years, 1995 and 2005.
Report the main features and make comparisons where relevant.

The pie chars illustrate the percentage of individual kinds of producting energy in France between 1995 and 2005.
Acording to the first chart, the proportion of Gas and the percentage of Coal shared a same figure at 30% in the first year and occupying the highest percentage in the pie chart. The second highest proportion was Petro and followed by nuclear and others respectively.
On the other hand, the cut of Petro energy which was produced in France now rose significantly of 11% in 2005. In that period of time, the fraction of Coal fell of 10% but still in the second place among these kinds. Sharing the same trend with Coal production, the percentage of Gas dramaticaly decrease, under 16%. Although the fraction of nuclear and the proportion of others both modestly increase of 7% and 9%, repestively but still the smallest cuts among three kinds of energy
Overall, the percentage of petro being produced was higest in both years. In contrast, the figure fo others type of energy had the opposite trend.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

Errors and Improvements:

1. "chars" -> "charts"
   Explanation: "Charts" is the correct term for visual representations of data, while "chars" is a misspelling.
2. "producting" -> "producing"
   Explanation: "Producing" is the correct form of the verb to describe the generation of energy, while "producting" is incorrect.
3. "Acording" -> "According"
   Explanation: "According" is the correct spelling of the word, beginning with a capital letter.
4. "Petro" -> "Petroleum"
   Explanation: "Petroleum" is a more formal and specific term for oil-based energy sources, offering clarity and precision.
5. "cut" -> "share"
   Explanation: "Share" is a more appropriate term to describe the portion or percentage of energy sources, enhancing clarity.
6. "rose significantly of" -> "increased significantly by"
   Explanation: "Increased significantly by" is a more grammatically correct phrase to describe the rise in percentage.
7. "fell of" -> "decreased by"
   Explanation: "Decreased by" is a more precise and grammatically correct term to describe the decline in percentage.
8. "dramaticaly" -> "dramatically"
   Explanation: "Dramatically" is the correct spelling of the adverb, describing the manner in which the decrease occurred.
9. "repestively" -> "respectively"
   Explanation: "Respectively" is the appropriate term to indicate that the following percentages correspond to the mentioned energy sources.
10. "higest" -> "highest"
    Explanation: "Highest" is the correct spelling of the superlative form of "high."
11. "fo" -> "for"
    Explanation: "For" is the correct preposition to use in this context, indicating the figure pertaining to a specific type of energy.
12. "repestive trend" -> "respective trends"
    Explanation: "Respective trends" accurately describes the contrasting directions of the figures for different types of energy sources.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 4

[
Band Score: 4.0
Explanation: The essay attempts to address the task by reporting on the main features and making some relevant comparisons between the two years. It covers some key features such as the changes in proportions of different energy sources between 1995 and 2005. However, the presentation lacks clarity due to grammatical errors and inaccuracies, which make parts of the essay unclear and confusing.
How to improve: Focus on improving clarity and accuracy in presenting information. Use more precise language and ensure that the essay follows a logical structure. Review grammar and spelling to avoid confusion and inaccuracies. Additionally, provide a clearer overview of the main trends and comparisons, ensuring that all key features are adequately covered.
]

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 4

Band Score: 4

Explanation:
The essay presents information regarding the comparison of energy production in France in 1995 and 2005 using pie charts. However, the essay lacks coherence and cohesion due to several reasons:

1. Organization: The essay lacks clear organization and progression of ideas. It jumps between discussing the pie charts without a clear structure, leading to a disjointed flow.
2. Cohesive Devices: While some cohesive devices are attempted, such as temporal markers ("between 1995 and 2005"), they are used inaccurately or inconsistently. This affects the coherence within and between sentences.
3. Paragraphing: The essay lacks logical paragraphing, with ideas being presented in a single block of text. This makes it difficult for the reader to follow the essay’s structure.

How to improve:

1. Organization: Start by introducing the main features shown in the pie charts and outline the comparisons you intend to make. Then, proceed to discuss each chart separately, ensuring a clear and logical progression of ideas.
2. Cohesive Devices: Use cohesive devices more effectively to connect ideas within and between sentences. This includes using transition words and phrases to indicate relationships between points.
3. Paragraphing: Divide the essay into paragraphs, with each paragraph focusing on a specific aspect of the comparison. Ensure that there is a clear topic sentence for each paragraph to guide the reader through the essay’s structure.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates a basic range of vocabulary, with some inaccuracies and errors that occasionally hinder clarity. The writer attempts to convey information about energy production in France between 1995 and 2005, utilizing vocabulary related to the topic. However, there are noticeable errors in word choice, spelling, and word formation throughout the essay. For instance, "producting" instead of "producing," "chars" instead of "charts," "Petro" instead of "Petroleum," and "repestively" instead of "respectively." Additionally, there are instances of awkward phrasing and grammatical errors, which impede the fluency and coherence of the essay.

How to improve:

1. Vocabulary Accuracy: Ensure accuracy in word choice, spelling, and word formation. Proofreading and editing can help identify and correct these errors.
2. Sentence Structure: Work on sentence structure to enhance clarity and coherence. Simplify complex sentences to avoid confusion.
3. Grammar and Syntax: Review grammar rules and syntax to improve sentence construction and fluency.
4. Content Organization: Structure the essay with clear introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion to improve coherence and logical flow.
5. Practice Writing: Regular practice in writing essays, focusing on vocabulary usage and sentence construction, will help improve overall writing skills. Additionally, familiarize yourself with common essay topics to expand your vocabulary and improve accuracy.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 5

Band Score: 5.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates an attempt at a variety of sentence structures, including both simple and complex forms. However, there are notable grammatical errors throughout the text, such as incorrect verb forms ("producting" instead of "producing"), misspelled words ("chars" instead of "charts"), and issues with subject-verb agreement ("the proportion of Gas and the percentage of Coal shared a same figure"). Additionally, there are punctuation errors and inconsistencies, such as missing commas and periods. Despite these errors, the essay remains comprehensible, albeit with some difficulty due to the grammatical inaccuracies.

How to improve:

1. Grammar and Spelling: Pay close attention to verb forms, subject-verb agreement, and the correct spelling of words. Proofreading the essay thoroughly can help identify and correct these errors.
2. Sentence Structure: Aim for a more consistent and accurate use of sentence structures. Practice constructing sentences with clear subject-verb-object relationships to enhance readability.
3. Punctuation: Ensure proper punctuation throughout the essay, including commas to separate clauses and periods to end sentences. Consistent use of punctuation enhances clarity and readability.

Bài sửa mẫu

The provided pie charts illustrate the distribution of various energy production types in France during the years 1995 and 2005.

In 1995, both Gas and Coal accounted for the largest share, each constituting 30% of the total energy production, making them the dominant sources. Following closely behind was Petro, contributing to 25% of the energy output. Nuclear energy stood at 20%, while other forms of energy collectively comprised the remaining 15%.

By 2005, there was a notable shift in energy production. Petro witnessed a significant increase, rising to 36%, marking a substantial growth of 11% compared to 1995. Conversely, Coal experienced a decline, dropping to 20%, a decrease of 10% over the same period. Gas production also saw a considerable reduction, plummeting to below 16%, indicating a decline of around 14% since 1995. However, Nuclear energy and other forms both experienced modest increases, reaching 27% and 24%, respectively.

Overall, Petro emerged as the primary source of energy production in both years, with its share notably increasing from 1995 to 2005. Conversely, while Coal maintained a significant presence, its proportion diminished over the same period. Notably, Gas production experienced a sharp decline, indicating a shift in energy production trends over the decade.