The pie charts indicate changes in the proportions of energy produced in a country from 1983 to 2003.

The pie charts depict changes in the ratios of energy manufactured in a country over 20 years period, between 1983 and 2003.
Generally, the rates of natural gas and nuclear power increased. On the contrary, the rates of coal and oil decreased. Meanwhile, the rates of hydropower remained constant through the period.
It can be seen in the chart that the percentage of oil stood at 42% in 1983, the highest percentage among 5 energy and then it fell slightly to 38% in 2003. While, the proportion of hydropower started at 4% in 1983, the lowest proportion in all 5 energy and nearly 11 times lower than of those of oil, after that it leveled off until 2003.
Looking at the chart in more detail, the ratio of natural gas began at 11% in 1983 then it rose remarkably to 21% in 2003. Similarly, the rate of nuclear power was 20% in 1983 and then grew a little to 24% in 2003. In contrast, the ratio of coal stood at 23% in 1983 and after that it dropped sharply to only 13% in 2003.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"pie charts depict" -> "the pie charts illustrate"
Explanation: Using "illustrate" instead of "depict" provides a more formal and precise term for academic writing, enhancing the tone of the description.
"over 20 years period" -> "over a 20-year period"
Explanation: "A 20-year period" is grammatically correct and more precise, avoiding the awkward phrasing of "over 20 years period."
"Generally, the rates of natural gas and nuclear power increased." -> "The rates of natural gas and nuclear power generally increased."
Explanation: Reordering the sentence improves the flow and clarity, making it more direct and formal.
"On the contrary, the rates of coal and oil decreased." -> "In contrast, the rates of coal and oil decreased."
Explanation: "In contrast" is a more formal synonym for "on the contrary," and it aligns better with academic style.
"the rates of hydropower remained constant" -> "the rates of hydropower remained unchanged"
Explanation: "Remained unchanged" is a more precise and formal way to describe stability in data over time.
"the percentage of oil stood at 42%" -> "the percentage of oil was 42%"
Explanation: "Was" is more appropriate in this context, as it correctly describes the state of the data at a specific point in time.
"the lowest proportion in all 5 energy" -> "the lowest proportion among the five energy sources"
Explanation: "Among the five energy sources" is more precise and formally correct, specifying the category being compared.
"nearly 11 times lower than of those of oil" -> "approximately 11 times lower than that of oil"
Explanation: "Approximately" is more formal than "nearly," and "that of" is the correct prepositional phrase for comparing quantities.
"Looking at the chart in more detail," -> "Examining the chart more closely"
Explanation: "Examining the chart more closely" is more formal and academically appropriate than "Looking at the chart in more detail."
"the ratio of natural gas began at 11% in 1983 then it rose remarkably to 21% in 2003." -> "The ratio of natural gas began at 11% in 1983 and rose significantly to 21% in 2003."
Explanation: "And" is more appropriate for connecting sequential actions than "then," and "significantly" is a more formal synonym for "remarkably."
"the rate of nuclear power was 20% in 1983 and then grew a little to 24% in 2003." -> "The rate of nuclear power was 20% in 1983 and increased slightly to 24% in 2003."
Explanation: "Increased slightly" is more precise and formal than "grew a little," and aligns better with academic style.
"the ratio of coal stood at 23% in 1983 and after that it dropped sharply to only 13% in 2003." -> "The ratio of coal stood at 23% in 1983 and subsequently dropped sharply to 13% in 2003."
Explanation: "Subsequently" is a more formal and precise term for indicating a sequence of events, and removing "only" enhances the formality of the statement.

Band điểm Task Achivement ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6

Explanation: The essay provides an overview of the main trends in the pie charts, highlighting the key features of the data. However, the essay does not fully extend the key features, and some details are irrelevant or inaccurate. For example, the essay states that the rate of hydropower remained constant throughout the period, but the chart shows that it increased slightly from 4% to 4%.

How to improve: The essay could be improved by providing more detailed information about the changes in each energy source. For example, the essay could state that the percentage of oil decreased by 4% between 1983 and 2003, while the percentage of natural gas increased by 10%. The essay could also provide more specific comparisons between the different energy sources. For example, the essay could state that the percentage of natural gas in 2003 was twice as high as it was in 1983.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay presents information in a coherent manner, with a clear overall progression from the introduction to the detailed analysis of the pie charts. The writer effectively arranges the information by discussing each energy source and its changes over the specified period. However, there are instances of mechanical cohesion, such as the repetitive use of phrases like "in 1983" and "in 2003," which detracts from the overall fluidity of the writing. Additionally, while paragraphing is present, it could be more logically structured to enhance clarity and flow.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on varying their use of cohesive devices to avoid repetition and enhance the natural flow of the essay. Improving the logical structure of paragraphs by grouping related information together more effectively would also help. Additionally, ensuring that referencing is clear and appropriate throughout the essay will contribute to a more cohesive response.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary suitable for the task. The writer attempts to use less common vocabulary, such as "depict," "proportions," and "manufactured," but there are inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, such as "the rates of coal and oil decreased" which could be better expressed as "the proportions of coal and oil decreased." Additionally, there are some errors in word formation, such as "5 energy" which should be "5 types of energy." While these errors do not completely impede communication, they do detract from the overall clarity and precision of the essay.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on expanding their vocabulary range and using more precise word choices. They should also pay attention to collocations and ensure that terms are used correctly in context. Reducing errors in spelling and word formation will enhance the clarity of the writing. Furthermore, incorporating more sophisticated vocabulary and varied sentence structures can improve the overall lexical resource.

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 the writer attempts to convey information clearly, there are several grammatical errors and awkward phrasings that occasionally hinder communication. For instance, phrases like "20 years period" should be "20-year period," and "the highest percentage among 5 energy" should be "the highest percentage among the five energy sources." These errors, while not completely obstructive, do detract from the overall clarity and accuracy of the writing.

How to improve: To achieve a higher band score, the writer should focus on enhancing grammatical accuracy and expanding the range of sentence structures. This can be accomplished by practicing complex sentence forms and ensuring that all grammatical rules are followed. Additionally, proofreading for minor errors and awkward constructions would help improve clarity and coherence in the essay.

Bài sửa mẫu

The pie charts depict changes in the proportions of energy produced in a country over a 20-year period, from 1983 to 2003. Generally, the shares of natural gas and nuclear power increased, while the shares of coal and oil decreased. Meanwhile, the proportion of hydropower remained constant throughout the period.

It can be observed from the chart that the percentage of oil stood at 42% in 1983, the highest percentage among the five energy sources, before falling slightly to 38% in 2003. In contrast, the proportion of hydropower started at 4% in 1983, the lowest proportion of all five energy sources, and was nearly 11 times lower than that of oil; it then leveled off until 2003.

Looking at the chart in more detail, the proportion of natural gas began at 11% in 1983 and rose significantly to 21% in 2003. Similarly, the share of nuclear power was 20% in 1983 and then increased modestly to 24% in 2003. In contrast, the proportion of coal stood at 23% in 1983 and subsequently dropped sharply to only 13% in 2003.