The pie charts below show the sources of the electricity produced in four countries between 2003 and 2008. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The pie charts below show the sources of the electricity produced in four countries between 2003 and 2008.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The given pie charts delineate changes of energy production in four countries named India, Sweden, Morocco and Vietnam during a 5-year period beginning from 2003.

Overall, it is apparent that hydropower constituted the most noticeable percentage of energy produced in Sweden and Morocco whereas the figure for fossil fuel stayed at the highest in two remaining nations during the course.

Regarding Sweden, the data on Hydropower accounted for over one half of the total sources while fossil fuel and nuclear power combined was just 48% which still 2% lower than the highest rate. On the contrary, in India, the figure for fossil fuel was the majority of 82%, followed by 15% of hydropower and just 4% of nuclear power.

The biggest of the Morocco chart belonged to Hydropower which made up 96%. A significant lower rate, at the minority of 3%, was allocated for fossil fuel and the disappearance of nuclear power. As well as Morocco, Vietnam witnessed a adsence of nuclear power; however, the data on fossil fuels became the dominance at 56%, which was 12% higher than the remaining source called hydropower.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"the given pie charts delineate" -> "the provided pie charts illustrate"
Explanation: "Illustrate" is more precise and commonly used in academic contexts to describe the presentation of data, whereas "delineate" can be seen as less specific and slightly formal.
"named India, Sweden, Morocco and Vietnam" -> "namely India, Sweden, Morocco, and Vietnam"
Explanation: "Namely" is a more formal and precise way to introduce a list of examples, aligning better with academic style.
"during a 5-year period beginning from 2003" -> "over a 5-year period commencing from 2003"
Explanation: "Commencing" is a more formal term than "beginning," and "over" is more commonly used in academic writing to describe time spans.
"the most noticeable percentage" -> "the largest proportion"
Explanation: "Proportion" is a more precise term in academic writing, particularly when discussing percentages in a comparative context.
"the figure for fossil fuel stayed at the highest" -> "the proportion of fossil fuel remained the highest"
Explanation: "Remained" is more specific and academically appropriate than "stayed," which can be seen as informal.
"On the contrary" -> "In contrast"
Explanation: "In contrast" is a more formal transitional phrase suitable for academic writing, whereas "On the contrary" can sound slightly informal.
"the biggest of the Morocco chart" -> "the largest proportion in Morocco"
Explanation: "The largest proportion" is more precise and formal, avoiding the colloquial "biggest."
"A significant lower rate" -> "a significantly lower rate"
Explanation: Adding "ly" to "significantly" corrects the grammatical error and enhances the formality of the statement.
"the minority of 3%" -> "a minority of 3%"
Explanation: "A" is the correct indefinite article to use before "minority" in this context.
"the disappearance of nuclear power" -> "the absence of nuclear power"
Explanation: "Absence" is more precise and formal than "disappearance," which can imply a more dramatic change that may not be intended.
"As well as Morocco, Vietnam witnessed a adsence" -> "Similarly, Vietnam experienced an absence"
Explanation: "Experienced an absence" corrects the spelling error in "adsence" and uses "similarly" for a smoother transition between sentences.
"the data on fossil fuels became the dominance" -> "fossil fuels became the dominant source"
Explanation: "Dominant source" is more specific and academically appropriate than "dominance," which is less commonly used in this context.
"which was 12% higher than the remaining source called hydropower" -> "which represented a 12% increase over hydropower"
Explanation: "Represented a 12% increase over" is more precise and formal, avoiding the awkward construction of "the remaining source called hydropower."

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay adequately addresses the task by providing an overview of the main features of the pie charts. The essay presents an overview with information appropriately selected. The essay presents and adequately highlights key features/bullet points, but details may be irrelevant, inappropriate or inaccurate. For example, the essay states that "the figure for fossil fuel stayed at the highest in two remaining nations during the course." This statement is not entirely accurate, as the figure for fossil fuel in Vietnam is higher than the figure for hydropower.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more accurate and relevant details. For example, the essay could provide specific figures for each country and each energy source. The essay could also be improved by using more precise language. For example, instead of saying "the figure for fossil fuel stayed at the highest," the essay could say "fossil fuel was the dominant source of energy in India and Vietnam."

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay presents information coherently and shows a clear overall progression. The main features of the pie charts are summarized, and comparisons are made between the countries. However, the use of cohesive devices is somewhat mechanical, and there are instances of awkward phrasing that detract from clarity. While the essay does use paragraphing, it could be improved for better logical flow.

How to improve:

Enhance Cohesion: Use a wider range of cohesive devices to connect ideas more naturally. Avoid repetitive phrases and ensure that transitions between sentences and paragraphs are smooth.
Clarify Ideas: Rephrase awkward sentences for clarity. For example, instead of "the disappearance of nuclear power," consider "the absence of nuclear power."
Improve Paragraphing: Ensure that each paragraph has a clear central topic and that the information within each paragraph is logically sequenced. Consider separating comparisons into distinct paragraphs for clarity.
Proofreading: Check for grammatical errors and typos, such as "adsence" which should be "absence," to enhance the overall quality of writing.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0
Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary relevant to the task, with some attempts to use less common lexical items. However, there are noticeable inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, such as "the disappearance of nuclear power" and "the biggest of the Morocco chart," which detract from the overall clarity. Additionally, there are errors in spelling and word formation, such as "adsence" instead of "absence," which do not impede communication but are still present. Overall, the vocabulary used is sufficient for the task, but it lacks the precision and sophistication required for a higher band score.
How to improve: To enhance the lexical resource score, the writer should focus on using more precise vocabulary and ensuring correct collocations. Practicing with synonyms and varying expressions can help avoid repetition. Additionally, careful proofreading to eliminate spelling errors and improve word formation will strengthen the overall quality of the essay. Engaging with more complex vocabulary in context and using it accurately will also contribute to achieving a higher band score.

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 sentence structures, the essay contains several grammatical errors and awkward phrasing that occasionally impede clarity. For instance, phrases like "the disappearance of nuclear power" and "the biggest of the Morocco chart" are not idiomatic and detract from the overall coherence. Additionally, there are issues with punctuation and word choice, such as "a adsence of nuclear power," which should be "an absence of nuclear power." Overall, the errors do not severely hinder communication, but they are frequent enough to prevent a higher score.

How to improve:

Enhance Sentence Variety: Incorporate a wider range of complex sentence structures to demonstrate greater grammatical flexibility.
Focus on Accuracy: Pay closer attention to grammatical accuracy, particularly with articles, prepositions, and plural forms.
Refine Word Choice: Use more precise vocabulary and idiomatic expressions to improve clarity and coherence.
Proofreading: Allocate time for proofreading to catch and correct minor errors that could affect the overall impression of grammatical control.

Bài sửa mẫu

The given pie charts delineate changes in energy production in four countries named India, Sweden, Morocco, and Vietnam during a 5-year period beginning in 2003.

Overall, it is apparent that hydropower constituted the most significant percentage of energy produced in Sweden and Morocco, whereas fossil fuel remained the highest source in the other two nations throughout the period.

Regarding Sweden, hydropower accounted for over one half of the total sources, while fossil fuel and nuclear power combined made up just 48%, which was still 2% lower than the highest rate. In contrast, in India, fossil fuel represented the majority at 82%, followed by 15% from hydropower and just 4% from nuclear power.

The largest segment of the Morocco chart belonged to hydropower, which comprised 96%. A significantly lower rate, at only 3%, was allocated to fossil fuel, with no contribution from nuclear power. Similarly, Vietnam experienced an absence of nuclear power; however, fossil fuels dominated at 56%, which was 12% higher than the remaining source, hydropower.