The pie charts below show the comparison of different kinds of energy production in France in two years
The pie charts below show the comparison of different kinds of energy production in France in two years
The graphs illustrates the comparison of fossil fuels ( gas, coal, petrol ) and renewable energy sources kinds of energy production in France from 1995 to 2005
In looking from an overall prepective, fossil fuels was more used comparison than renewable energy sources and other. The general trend in energy consumption is to increase over the time period presented.
Firstly, in 1995, fossil fuels: coal was the highest approximately 30% at 29,80%. Then gas at 29,63% lower than coal but insignificant, next gas used comparison with 29,63%. Gas, coal and petrol similar 30%. The remaining nucler just under 6,5% and exact 6,4% and other nearly to 5% with 4,9%
Likewise, by 2005. fossil fuels a graduatlly increase. the highest was coal with nearly to 31% at 30,93%. Gas lower than coal but unimportant was 30,31%. Howover, petrol downward trend at 19,55%. Finally, Nucler with 10,1% and other was leatest at 9,1%
Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng
-
"The graphs illustrates" -> "The graphs illustrate"
Explanation: "Illustrate" is the correct plural form of "illustrate" when referring to multiple graphs, ensuring grammatical accuracy in formal academic writing. -
"fossil fuels ( gas, coal, petrol )" -> "fossil fuels (gas, coal, and petrol)"
Explanation: Adding "and" before "petrol" corrects the list format to include all three items, improving readability and formality. -
"kinds of energy production" -> "types of energy production"
Explanation: "Types" is a more precise term in academic contexts, replacing the less formal "kinds." -
"In looking from an overall prepective," -> "From an overall perspective"
Explanation: Corrects the spelling of "perspective" and removes the unnecessary "in looking," which is grammatically incorrect. -
"was more used comparison than" -> "was used more than"
Explanation: Simplifies and corrects the awkward phrasing to improve clarity and grammatical correctness. -
"other" -> "other sources"
Explanation: Adding "sources" clarifies what "other" refers to, enhancing precision in the comparison. -
"nucler" -> "nuclear"
Explanation: Corrects the spelling of "nuclear" to ensure accuracy. -
"a graduatlly increase" -> "a gradual increase"
Explanation: Corrects the spelling of "gradually" and removes the unnecessary "a" before "increase" for grammatical correctness. -
"nearly to" -> "nearly"
Explanation: Removes unnecessary "to" for conciseness and clarity. -
"Howover" -> "However"
Explanation: Corrects the spelling of "However" to maintain professionalism and accuracy. -
"leatest" -> "least"
Explanation: Corrects the spelling of "least" to ensure accuracy and maintain the formal tone.
These changes enhance the essay’s clarity, grammatical accuracy, and adherence to formal academic style.
Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 4
Band Score: 4
Explanation: The essay attempts to address the task but does not cover all key features/bullet points. The essay does not provide a clear overview of the main trends in energy production in France. The essay also confuses key features/bullet points with detail. For example, the essay states that "fossil fuels was more used comparison than renewable energy sources and other" but does not provide any specific data to support this claim. The essay also provides a lot of irrelevant detail, such as the exact percentages for each type of energy production in 1995.
How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing a clear overview of the main trends in energy production in France. The essay should also focus on the key features/bullet points of the data, rather than providing irrelevant detail. The essay should also use more accurate language. For example, instead of saying "fossil fuels was more used comparison than renewable energy sources and other," the essay should say "fossil fuels accounted for a larger proportion of energy production than renewable energy sources and other."
Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 4
Band Score: 4.0
Explanation:
The essay presents some information about energy production in France from 1995 to 2005, but the organization lacks coherence and clear progression. The ideas are not arranged logically, and there is no clear structure guiding the reader through the information. Paragraphing is inconsistent, with several sentences grouped together without clear breaks that would logically separate different points or ideas.
Cohesive devices are used in a basic manner, but they are often inaccurate or repetitive ("similar 30%", "the highest was coal", "Howover"). This detracts from the clarity and cohesion of the essay. The referencing of specific data points is also imprecise ("exact 6,4%"), which hinders the overall coherence.
How to improve:
-
Organizational Structure: Ensure the essay follows a clear structure with an introduction, body paragraphs that each focus on a distinct aspect (e.g., 1995 data, 2005 data), and a conclusion summarizing the trends.
-
Logical Progression: Arrange ideas in a logical sequence that guides the reader through the comparison over time. Start with an overview and then delve into specific details for each year.
-
Cohesive Devices: Use cohesive devices accurately and appropriately. Avoid repetition and inaccuracies in data presentation. Ensure that referencing and substitution of terms are clear and precise.
-
Paragraphing: Divide the essay into paragraphs logically, with each paragraph focusing on one main idea or data set. This helps in maintaining coherence and guiding the reader through the information effectively.
Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 4
Band Score: 4.0
Explanation:
The essay demonstrates a basic range of vocabulary, but there are significant issues with accuracy and appropriateness. The vocabulary used is often repetitive ("fossil fuels", "comparison", "energy sources") and lacks variety in terms of lexical items. There are numerous errors in word formation and spelling throughout the essay ("gas" instead of "gasoline", "Nucler" instead of "Nuclear", "leatest" instead of "least", "Howover" instead of "However"). These errors can strain understanding and hinder effective communication. The vocabulary is also not entirely appropriate for the task, as some terms are not commonly used or are awkwardly phrased ("fossil fuels was more used comparison than renewable energy sources and other").
How to improve:
To improve the Lexical Resource score:
- Increase Vocabulary Range: Introduce a wider variety of vocabulary relevant to the topic of energy production and analysis.
- Improve Accuracy: Focus on correct word choice, spelling, and word formation to enhance clarity and readability.
- Avoid Repetition: Use synonyms and different lexical items to avoid repetitive language.
- Ensure Appropriateness: Use terms and expressions that are suitable for academic writing and specifically related to the topic of energy production.
By addressing these areas, the essay can achieve a higher band score for Lexical Resource on the IELTS Task 2 criteria.
Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 4
Band Score: 4.0
Explanation:
The essay demonstrates a limited range of grammatical structures with frequent errors that affect communication. There are issues with sentence structure, verb tense consistency, punctuation, and word choice throughout the essay. For example, incorrect verb forms ("was more used comparison"), inconsistent use of articles ("the highest approximately 30% at 29,80%"), and unclear sentence structure ("Gas, coal and petrol similar 30%") contribute to the lack of clarity and coherence.
How to improve:
- Sentence Structure: Work on forming clearer and more coherent sentences. Avoid run-on sentences and ensure each sentence conveys a complete thought.
- Grammar and Punctuation: Focus on verb tense consistency and proper punctuation usage. Pay attention to subject-verb agreement and the correct use of articles (a, an, the).
- Word Choice and Clarity: Use precise vocabulary and avoid informal language or unclear phrasing. Aim for clarity and accuracy in expressing ideas.
Improving these areas will help in achieving a higher band score by demonstrating better control of grammar and more accurate sentence structures.
Bài sửa mẫu
The graphs illustrate the comparison of fossil fuels (gas, coal, petrol) and renewable energy sources in terms of energy production in France from 1995 to 2005.
In an overall perspective, fossil fuels were more prominently used compared to renewable energy sources and others. The general trend in energy consumption shows an increase over the time period presented.
Firstly, in 1995, coal was the highest among fossil fuels, accounting for approximately 30% at 29.80%. Gas followed closely at 29.63%, which was slightly lower than coal but not significantly different. Petrol was nearly equal to gas and coal, standing at around 30%. Nuclear energy accounted for just under 6.5% at 6.4%, while other sources constituted nearly 5% with 4.9%.
Similarly, by 2005, fossil fuel usage gradually increased. Coal remained the highest, reaching nearly 31% at 30.93%. Gas, though lower than coal, was still significant at 30.31%. However, petrol showed a downward trend, declining to 19.55%. Nuclear energy increased to 10.1%, while other sources were the least at 9.1%.
Phản hồi