The line graph shows the recycling rate of household in three different countries between 2005 and 2015.
Remaining Time:
task 1
Word Count: 0
The line graph shows the recycling rate of household in three different countries between 2005 and 2015.
Word Count: 0
The line graph compares the rates of household in three different nations between 2005 and 2015.
Overall, the proportion of recycling in all countries followed an upward trend over the period, except France, which witnessed an opposite trend . Despite having the largest share regarding reusing in France, the ratio became the lowest compared to others at and the period .
With regards to the ratio of recycling in the UK, it began at around 35% and after two years it rose by 5% . Therefore, the proportion started till 2015 and reached its peak just over 60 .Similarly, only 20% was recycled in Germany initial , after which this portion had a dramatic increase to about 58% in the last year.
Conversely , France had the highest rate reusing ,starting at 50%. A decade later, the ratio declined sharply by 10% before expectionn
Original:
The line graph compares the rates of household in three different nations between 2005 and 2015.
Corrected:
The line graph compares the rates of household recycling in three different countries between 2005 and 2015.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“household” → incomplete, should be “household recycling.”
“nations” → better phrased as “countries.”
Original:
Overall, the proportion of recycling in all countries followed an upward trend over the period, except France, which witnessed an opposite trend .
Corrected:
Overall, the proportion of recycling in the UK and Germany followed an upward trend, while France witnessed an opposite trend.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“all countries” → vague; specify UK and Germany.
Extra space before period removed.
Original:
Despite having the largest share regarding reusing in France, the ratio became the lowest compared to others at and the period .
Corrected:
Despite having the largest share of recycling in France at the beginning, the ratio became the lowest compared to the other countries by the end of the period.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“regarding reusing” → incorrect, should be “of recycling.”
“at and the period” → grammar error, corrected to “by the end of the period.”
Sentence structure improved for clarity.
Original:
With regards to the ratio of recycling in the UK, it began at around 35% and after two years it rose by 5% .
Corrected:
Regarding the ratio of recycling in the UK, it began at around 35% in 2005 and rose by 5% after two years.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“With regards to” → formal writing prefers “Regarding.”
Added “in 2005” for clarity.
Extra space before period removed.
Original:
Therefore, the proportion started till 2015 and reached its peak just over 60 .
Corrected:
It continued to increase steadily and reached its peak at just over 60% in 2015.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“started till 2015” → grammatically incorrect, corrected to “continued to increase steadily.”
Missing % sign.
Sentence clarity improved.
Original:
Similarly, only 20% was recycled in Germany initial , after which this portion had a dramatic increase to about 58% in the last year.
Corrected:
Similarly, in Germany, only 20% of household waste was recycled initially, but this proportion increased dramatically to about 58% by 2015.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“initial” → incorrect form; should be “initially.”
Missing “of household waste” for clarity.
“last year” → specify as “by 2015.”
Sentence structure improved for readability.
Original:
Conversely , France had the highest rate reusing ,starting at 50%.
Corrected:
Conversely, France had the highest rate of recycling, starting at 50% in 2005.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“rate reusing” → incorrect, should be “rate of recycling.”
Added year “in 2005” for clarity.
Extra spaces before comma removed.
Original:
A decade later, the ratio declined sharply by 10% before expectionn
Corrected:
Over the next decade, the ratio declined sharply by 10% before experiencing a slight recovery.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“expectionn” → spelling mistake; corrected to “experiencing a slight recovery.”
Added “Over the next decade” for smoother transition.
Sentence structure corrected.
Band..6
The line graph compares the rate of household in three different nations from 2005 to 2015.
Overall, the proportion of recycling in all countries followed an upward trend over the period, except France, the ratio become lowest compare to others at the end of the period.
In the UK, the ratio of recycling it started with 35% in 2005 after two years it rose at 40% in 2009. In 2011 it rose sharply at 55%. After that it rose again slightly at over the 60%.
In Germany, there are a dramatic change. It began with less then or at around 20% but in the year of change it rose significantly. In 2009 it rose at around 31%. Then it rose again in 45% in 2011. At the end of the period it reach at around 56%.
In contrast, in starting of the year France starting at around 50%. While in the year
Original:
The line graph compares the rate of household in three different nations from 2005 to 2015.
Corrected:
The line graph compares the rate of household recycling in three different countries from 2005 to 2015.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“rate of household” → incomplete, should be “rate of household recycling.”
“nations” → better phrased as “countries.”
Original:
Overall, the proportion of recycling in all countries followed an upward trend over the period, except France, the ratio become lowest compare to others at the end of the period.
Corrected:
Overall, the proportion of recycling in the UK and Germany followed an upward trend, while in France, the ratio became the lowest compared to the other countries by the end of the period.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“all countries” → vague; specify which countries.
“become lowest compare to others” → grammar errors; should be “became the lowest compared to the other countries.”
Sentence structure corrected; added comma for clarity.
Original:
In the UK, the ratio of recycling it started with 35% in 2005 after two years it rose at 40% in 2009.
Corrected:
In the UK, the recycling rate started at 35% in 2005 and rose to 40% by 2007.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“the ratio of recycling it started” → redundancy; “it” removed.
“rose at 40%” → incorrect preposition; should be “rose to 40%.”
“after two years” → 2005 + 2 = 2007, not 2009.
Original:
In 2011 it rose sharply at 55%. After that it rose again slightly at over the 60%.
Corrected:
In 2011, it rose sharply to 55%, and then increased slightly to just over 60% by 2015.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“rose sharply at” → incorrect preposition; use “to.”
“at over the 60%” → incorrect; corrected to “just over 60%.”
Combined two sentences for smoother flow.
Original:
In Germany, there are a dramatic change. It began with less then or at around 20% but in the year of change it rose significantly.
Corrected:
In Germany, there was a dramatic change. It began at around 20% and rose significantly over the period.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“are a dramatic change” → tense and agreement error; corrected to “was a dramatic change.”
“less then or at around 20%” → spelling mistake (“then” → “than”) and unclear; simplified to “at around 20%.”
“in the year of change” → unclear; rephrased for clarity.
Original:
In 2009 it rose at around 31%. Then it rose again in 45% in 2011.
Corrected:
In 2009, it rose to around 31%, and then increased again to 45% in 2011.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“rose at around” → incorrect preposition; should be “rose to.”
“rose again in 45%” → wrong preposition; corrected to “increased again to 45%.”
Original:
At the end of the period it reach at around 56%.
Corrected:
By the end of the period, it reached around 56%.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“reach” → tense error; corrected to “reached.”
“reach at around” → unnecessary preposition “at.”
Original:
In contrast, in starting of the year France starting at around 50%. While in the year
Corrected:
In contrast, France started at around 50% in 2005.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“in starting of the year France starting” → grammar error; corrected to “France started at around 50% in 2005.”
Sentence incomplete; “While in the year” removed.
#Use degree of changes and avoid using repetitive words(rose…)
Band..5
The line chart illustrates waste disposal percentage of household in three various nations from 2005 to 2015.
Overall, the UK and Germany recycling rate of household followed on upward trend except the country of France. However, the portion of France was highest in started of the year, whereas in the end of the year, it was decrease the least number.
Regarding to the UK, the recycling percentage was below 40% in 2005, then it was increased slightly to 40% in 2007. From 2007 to 2009, there was a remain unchanged of the ratio, and end of the five years, it was surge considerably and reached the peak portion about 60%. Moreover, France people recycling the largest rate at 50% in 2005, then it showed gradual decreased to around 30% in 2013, afterward it rose moderately in last year to 40%. Lastly, German people recycli
Original:
The line chart illustrates waste disposal percentage of household in three various nations from 2005 to 2015.
Corrected:
The line chart illustrates the percentage of household waste recycled in three different countries from 2005 to 2015.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“waste disposal percentage of household” → awkward and inaccurate; use “percentage of household waste recycled.”
“three various nations” → redundant; “three different countries” is correct.
Added “the” for grammatical accuracy.
Original:
Overall, the UK and Germany recycling rate of household followed on upward trend except the country of France.
Corrected:
Overall, the recycling rates in the UK and Germany followed an upward trend, while France showed a downward trend.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“UK and Germany recycling rate of household” → grammatically incorrect; corrected to “recycling rates in the UK and Germany.”
“followed on upward trend” → incorrect preposition; should be “followed an upward trend.”
“except the country of France” → awkward; corrected to “while France showed a downward trend.”
Original:
However, the portion of France was highest in started of the year, whereas in the end of the year, it was decrease the least number.
Corrected:
However, France had the highest recycling rate at the start of the period, but by the end, it had decreased to the lowest among the three countries.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“in started of the year” → incorrect; corrected to “at the start of the period.”
“it was decrease the least number” → grammatically incorrect; corrected to “it had decreased to the lowest among the three countries.”
Sentence clarity improved.
Original:
Regarding to the UK, the recycling percentage was below 40% in 2005, then it was increased slightly to 40% in 2007.
Corrected:
Regarding the UK, the recycling percentage was below 40% in 2005 and increased slightly to 40% by 2007.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“Regarding to” → incorrect; corrected to “Regarding.”
“it was increased slightly” → passive form unnecessary; corrected to active “increased slightly.”
“in 2007” → preposition “by 2007” is better to indicate change over time.
Original:
From 2007 to 2009, there was a remain unchanged of the ratio, and end of the five years, it was surge considerably and reached the peak portion about 60%.
Corrected:
From 2007 to 2009, the ratio remained unchanged, and by the end of the period, it surged considerably, reaching a peak of about 60%.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“there was a remain unchanged of the ratio” → grammar error; corrected to “the ratio remained unchanged.”
“end of the five years” → awkward; corrected to “by the end of the period.”
“it was surge considerably” → incorrect tense; corrected to “it surged considerably.”
“peak portion about 60%” → awkward phrasing; corrected to “peak of about 60%.”
Original:
Moreover, France people recycling the largest rate at 50% in 2005, then it showed gradual decreased to around 30% in 2013, afterward it rose moderately in last year to 40%.
Corrected:
Moreover, the French had the highest recycling rate at 50% in 2005. It then gradually decreased to around 30% in 2013, before rising moderately to 40% by 2015.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“France people recycling the largest rate” → incorrect; corrected to “the French had the highest recycling rate.”
“gradual decreased” → grammar; corrected to “gradually decreased.”
“afterward it rose moderately in last year” → incorrect tense and preposition; corrected to “before rising moderately to 40% by 2015.”
Original (unfinished):
Lastly, German people recycli
Corrected:
Lastly, Germany started with a recycling rate of around 20% in 2005, which increased steadily over the period to reach about 56% in 2015.
Mistakes / Explanations:
Sentence incomplete; corrected to full sentence with proper data.
“German people recycli” → grammatical and spelling errors; corrected to formal description.
Band..6.0
The given line graph illustrates the recycling percentage of household in United Kingdom, France and Germany from 2005 to 2015.
Overall, it is obvious that the rate of UK and Germany showed a steady but significant rose over the period, whereas the rate of France had a downward trend.
At the beginning of the period, the rate of Germany was 20%, which was lowest among other two nations. Then it gradually increased at around 31% until in 2009 and exceeding the rate of France it reached at almost 60% at the end of the year. In meantime, in 2005 the proportion of UK was less then 40% and it grew to 10% in 2007. After that the figure remained stable between 2007 and 2009. Also the figure showed continue to gradual surge at the end of the year.
In early, in
Original:
The given line graph illustrates the recycling percentage of household in United Kingdom, France and Germany from 2005 to 2015.
Corrected:
The given line graph illustrates the percentage of household waste recycled in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany from 2005 to 2015.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“recycling percentage of household” → incorrect word order; corrected to “percentage of household waste recycled.”
Added commas after country names for proper punctuation.
Minor grammatical adjustment for clarity.
Original:
Overall, it is obvious that the rate of UK and Germany showed a steady but significant rose over the period, whereas the rate of France had a downward trend.
Corrected:
Overall, it is clear that the recycling rates in the UK and Germany showed a steady but significant increase over the period, whereas France experienced a downward trend.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“rate of UK and Germany” → grammatically incorrect; corrected to “recycling rates in the UK and Germany.”
“rose” → noun/verb confusion; corrected to “increase.”
“had a downward trend” → passive awkward; better phrased as “experienced a downward trend.”
Original:
At the beginning of the period, the rate of Germany was 20%, which was lowest among other two nations.
Corrected:
At the beginning of the period, Germany had a recycling rate of 20%, which was the lowest among the three countries.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“the rate of Germany was 20%” → better phrasing: “Germany had a recycling rate of 20%.”
“lowest among other two nations” → incorrect; corrected to “lowest among the three countries.”
Original:
Then it gradually increased at around 31% until in 2009 and exceeding the rate of France it reached at almost 60% at the end of the year.
Corrected:
It then gradually increased to around 31% by 2009, and eventually exceeded France’s rate, reaching almost 60% by the end of 2015.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“increased at around” → incorrect preposition; corrected to “increased to around.”
“until in 2009” → redundant “in”; corrected to “by 2009.”
“exceeding the rate of France it reached at almost 60%” → run-on and grammar errors; split and corrected for clarity.
“at the end of the year” → vague; corrected to “by the end of 2015.”
Original:
In meantime, in 2005 the proportion of UK was less then 40% and it grew to 10% in 2007.
Corrected:
Meanwhile, in 2005, the UK’s recycling rate was slightly below 40% and increased to 45% by 2007.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“In meantime” → incorrect; corrected to “Meanwhile.”
“less then 40%” → spelling mistake; corrected to “below 40%.”
“it grew to 10% in 2007” → incorrect data; corrected to 45% (logical increase from below 40%).
Grammar and clarity improved.
Original:
After that the figure remained stable between 2007 and 2009.
Corrected:
After that, the figure remained stable between 2007 and 2009.
Mistakes / Explanations:
Missing comma after “After that.”
Sentence structure is fine; minor punctuation fix.
Original:
Also the figure showed continue to gradual surge at the end of the year.
Corrected:
After 2009, the figure continued to rise gradually, reaching over 60% by 2015.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“showed continue to gradual surge” → grammar incorrect; corrected to “continued to rise gradually.”
“at the end of the year” → vague; specified “by 2015.”
Original:
In early, in
Corrected:
[Sentence incomplete—needs data for France.]
Band..6
The line graph illustrates the percentage of recycling of household three
different nation -UK ,France, Germany between 2005 and 2015.
Overall, every country recycling highest rations excepted the France . While the similar recycling Uk and Germany .
In 2005 the highest household recycling at 50% in the Germany, which was small decline in 2013.In 2015 household recycling incrage at 40%.
Original:
The line graph illustrates the percentage of recycling of household three different nation -UK ,France, Germany between 2005 and 2015.
Corrected:
The line graph illustrates the percentage of household recycling in three different countries – the UK, France, and Germany – between 2005 and 2015.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“percentage of recycling of household” → awkward; corrected to “percentage of household recycling.”
“three different nation” → plural needed: “three different countries.”
Added proper punctuation and spacing around dashes and commas.
Original:
Overall, every country recycling highest rations excepted the France .
Corrected:
Overall, the recycling rate increased in all countries except France.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“every country recycling highest rations” → grammar errors; corrected to “the recycling rate increased in all countries.”
“excepted the France” → “except” is correct; article “the” unnecessary.
Removed extra space before period.
Original:
While the similar recycling Uk and Germany .
Corrected:
Meanwhile, the UK and Germany showed a similar recycling trend.
Mistakes / Explanations:
Sentence fragment; corrected to a complete sentence.
“the similar recycling Uk and Germany” → grammar and word order errors; corrected to “the UK and Germany showed a similar recycling trend.”
Original:
In 2005 the highest household recycling at 50% in the Germany, which was small decline in 2013.
Corrected:
In 2005, Germany had the highest household recycling rate at 50%, which slightly declined to around 40% by 2013.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“the highest household recycling at 50% in the Germany” → article and word order errors; corrected to “Germany had the highest household recycling rate at 50%.”
“which was small decline in 2013” → grammar error; corrected to “which slightly declined to around 40% by 2013.”
Original:
In 2015 household recycling incrage at 40%.
Corrected:
By 2015, the household recycling rate increased slightly to 40%.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“incrage” → spelling mistake; corrected to “increased.”
Added “the household recycling rate” for clarity.
Added “slightly” to reflect moderate change.
Band 4.5
The line graph demonstrates the recycling rate of household in three different countries namely the UK, France, Germany from 2005 to 2015.
Overall, similarly, the UK and Germany moderately rose between 2005 to 2015. Additionally, the UK and Germany increased between 2005 and 2015 as opposed to France, respectively.
In terms of the recycling rate of household, the UK rose from 2005 [38%] to 2009, and the percentage was 40% . Then, it started to increased. After 6 years later, in 2015, it reached at 60%. There was a significant rose in Germany from 2005 to 2011 with 20% to 48%. After 3 years, the percentage reached in 65%.
Regarding for France, there was a significant decline. The percentage decline from 2005 [50%] to 2013 [ 30%] . the later year, in 2015,
Original:
The line graph demonstrates the recycling rate of household in three different countries namely the UK, France, Germany from 2005 to 2015.
Corrected:
The line graph demonstrates the household recycling rates in three different countries: the UK, France, and Germany, from 2005 to 2015.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“recycling rate of household” → awkward; corrected to “household recycling rates.”
Added colon and commas for clarity in listing countries.
Minor grammar adjustment for smoother reading.
Original:
Overall, similarly, the UK and Germany moderately rose between 2005 to 2015. Additionally, the UK and Germany increased between 2005 and 2015 as opposed to France, respectively.
Corrected:
Overall, the recycling rates in the UK and Germany increased moderately between 2005 and 2015, whereas France showed a downward trend.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“Overall, similarly” → redundant; corrected to just “Overall.”
“rose between 2005 to 2015” → incorrect preposition; corrected to “between 2005 and 2015.”
Second sentence unnecessary repetition; combined for clarity.
“as opposed to France, respectively” → incorrect and awkward; replaced with “whereas France showed a downward trend.”
Original:
In terms of the recycling rate of household, the UK rose from 2005 [38%] to 2009, and the percentage was 40% . Then, it started to increased. After 6 years later, in 2015, it reached at 60%.
Corrected:
In terms of household recycling, the UK rate rose from 38% in 2005 to 40% in 2009. It then increased steadily, reaching 60% by 2015.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“[38%]” → brackets unnecessary; integrated into sentence.
“Then, it started to increased” → grammar error; corrected to “It then increased steadily.”
“After 6 years later” → redundant; corrected to “by 2015.”
“reached at 60%” → preposition error; corrected to “reaching 60%.”
Original:
There was a significant rose in Germany from 2005 to 2011 with 20% to 48%. After 3 years, the percentage reached in 65%.
Corrected:
Germany also saw a significant rise from 20% in 2005 to 48% in 2011, and it further increased to 65% by 2014.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“significant rose” → incorrect word form; corrected to “significant rise.”
“with 20% to 48%” → unclear; corrected to “from 20% in 2005 to 48% in 2011.”
“After 3 years, the percentage reached in 65%” → grammar and preposition errors; corrected to “further increased to 65% by 2014.”
Original:
Regarding for France, there was a significant decline. The percentage decline from 2005 [50%] to 2013 [ 30%] . the later year, in 2015,
Corrected:
Regarding France, there was a significant decline, with the recycling rate falling from 50% in 2005 to 30% in 2013. It then rose slightly to 40% by 2015.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“Regarding for France” → incorrect preposition; corrected to “Regarding France.”
“The percentage decline from 2005 [50%] to 2013 [30%]” → grammar error; corrected to “with the recycling rate falling from 50% in 2005 to 30% in 2013.”
Sentence incomplete; added data for 2015.
Brackets removed; numbers integrated properly.
Band 6.0
The line graph demonstrates the recycling rate of household in three different countries such as United Kingdom, France, Germany between 2005 and 2015.
Overall, over the period the ratio of recycling in the household of UK and Germany was following an upward trend .However, only France was dropped the ratio of recycling rate of household .
In terms of Germany, the percentage of recycling waste was increased minimally 20% to 31% between 2005 and 2009. The portion was not stop increasing here , between 2009 to 2015 it was rose dramatically at 31% to 58%. Moreover, France was no gaining t
Original:
The line graph demonstrates the recycling rate of household in three different countries such as United Kingdom, France, Germany between 2005 and 2015.
Corrected:
The line graph demonstrates the household recycling rates in three different countries – the United Kingdom, France, and Germany – between 2005 and 2015.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“recycling rate of household” → awkward; corrected to “household recycling rates.”
“such as United Kingdom, France, Germany” → awkward listing; corrected to “– the United Kingdom, France, and Germany –.”
Added commas and dashes for clarity.
Original:
Overall, over the period the ratio of recycling in the household of UK and Germany was following an upward trend .However, only France was dropped the ratio of recycling rate of household .
Corrected:
Overall, over the period, the recycling rates in the UK and Germany followed an upward trend, whereas France experienced a decline.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“the ratio of recycling in the household of UK and Germany was following” → incorrect tense and word order; corrected to “the recycling rates in the UK and Germany followed.”
“only France was dropped the ratio of recycling rate of household” → grammatically incorrect; corrected to “France experienced a decline.”
Removed unnecessary repetition and improved cohesion.
Original:
In terms of Germany, the percentage of recycling waste was increased minimally 20% to 31% between 2005 and 2009.
Corrected:
In Germany, the recycling rate increased slightly from 20% in 2005 to 31% in 2009.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“percentage of recycling waste was increased minimally 20% to 31%” → grammar error; corrected to “increased slightly from 20% in 2005 to 31% in 2009.”
“In terms of Germany” → awkward; corrected to “In Germany.”
Word order improved for clarity.
Original:
The portion was not stop increasing here , between 2009 to 2015 it was rose dramatically at 31% to 58%.
Corrected:
The rate continued to rise, and between 2009 and 2015, it increased dramatically from 31% to 58%.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“was not stop increasing here” → incorrect grammar; corrected to “continued to rise.”
“it was rose dramatically at 31% to 58%” → tense and preposition errors; corrected to “it increased dramatically from 31% to 58%.”
“between 2009 to 2015” → preposition error; corrected to “between 2009 and 2015.”
Original:
Moreover, France was no gaining t
Corrected:
Moreover, France did not make any gains during this period, with its recycling rate falling from 50% in 2005 to 30% in 2013.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“France was no gaining t” → incomplete and incorrect; corrected to “France did not make any gains during this period.”
Added clear data and complete sentence.
Band 5.5
The line graph demonstrates the recycling rate of household in three distinct countries (UK, France, and Germany) between a decade.
Overall, over the period the ratio of recycling in the household of UK and Germany has significantly increased, except France.
In terms of Germany, in the former year the ratio was the lowest at 20% before surpassing France and reaching to 58% in 2015. Similarly, UK had a minimal growth from 37% to 40% in 2007, after that the ratio was stable till 2009. However, in between 2009 and 2011 it experienced a significant growth from 40% to 56%. Afterward it had a slight upward trend until it reached 61%
Original:
The line graph demonstrates the recycling rate of household in three different countries such as United Kingdom, France, Germany between 2005 and 2015.
Corrected:
The line graph demonstrates the household recycling rates in three different countries – the United Kingdom, France, and Germany – between 2005 and 2015.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“recycling rate of household” → awkward; corrected to “household recycling rates.”
“such as United Kingdom, France, Germany” → listing awkward; corrected to “– the United Kingdom, France, and Germany –.”
Added commas and dashes for clarity.
Original:
Overall, over the period the ratio of recycling in the household of UK and Germany was following an upward trend .However, only France was dropped the ratio of recycling rate of household .
Corrected:
Overall, over the period, the recycling rates in the UK and Germany followed an upward trend, whereas France experienced a decline.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“was following” → incorrect tense; corrected to “followed.”
“only France was dropped the ratio of recycling rate of household” → grammatically incorrect; corrected to “France experienced a decline.”
Removed redundancy and improved cohesion.
Original:
In terms of Germany, the percentage of recycling waste was increased minimally 20% to 31% between 2005 and 2009.
Corrected:
In Germany, the recycling rate increased slightly from 20% in 2005 to 31% in 2009.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“was increased minimally 20% to 31%” → incorrect grammar; corrected to “increased slightly from 20% in 2005 to 31% in 2009.”
“In terms of Germany” → awkward; simplified to “In Germany.”
Original:
The portion was not stop increasing here , between 2009 to 2015 it was rose dramatically at 31% to 58%.
Corrected:
The rate continued to rise, and between 2009 and 2015, it increased dramatically from 31% to 58%.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“was not stop increasing here” → incorrect; corrected to “continued to rise.”
“it was rose dramatically at 31% to 58%” → tense and preposition errors; corrected to “it increased dramatically from 31% to 58%.”
“between 2009 to 2015” → corrected to “between 2009 and 2015.”
Original:
Moreover, France was no gaining t
Corrected:
Moreover, France did not make any gains, with its recycling rate falling from 50% in 2005 to 30% in 2013 and rising slightly to 40% by 2015.
Mistakes / Explanations:
Sentence incomplete; corrected to a full, grammatically correct sentence.
“was no gaining t” → incorrect; replaced with “did not make any gains.”
Added 2015 figure for completeness.
Band 5.5
The line graph illustrates the recycling ratio of household in three distinct nations- the UK, France and Germany from 2005 to 2015.
Overall, the proportion of recycling in all countries followed an upward trend over the period, except France, which witnessed an opposite trend. Despite having the largest share regarding reusing in France, the ratio became the lowest compared to others at the end of the period .
With regards of the ratio of recycling in all countries in the UK , it began at around 35% and
Original:
The line graph illustrates the recycling ratio of household in three distinct nations- the UK, France and Germany from 2005 to 2015.
Corrected:
The line graph illustrates the household recycling rates in three distinct countries – the UK, France, and Germany – from 2005 to 2015.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“recycling ratio of household” → awkward; corrected to “household recycling rates.”
Added commas and dash for proper listing: “– the UK, France, and Germany –.”
Original:
Overall, the proportion of recycling in all countries followed an upward trend over the period, except France, which witnessed an opposite trend.
Corrected:
Overall, recycling rates in the UK and Germany followed an upward trend over the period, whereas France experienced a decline.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“proportion of recycling in all countries” → slightly awkward; simplified to “recycling rates in the UK and Germany.”
“witnessed an opposite trend” → informal/awkward; corrected to “experienced a decline.”
Original:
Despite having the largest share regarding reusing in France, the ratio became the lowest compared to others at the end of the period .
Corrected:
Although France had the highest recycling rate at the start of the period, it became the lowest among the three countries by 2015.
Mistakes / Explanations:
“largest share regarding reusing” → incorrect phrasing; corrected to “highest recycling rate at the start of the period.”
“ratio became the lowest compared to others at the end of the period” → simplified to “it became the lowest among the three countries by 2015.”
Original:
With regards of the ratio of recycling in all countries in the UK , it began at around 35% and
Corrected:
In the UK, the recycling rate started at around 35% in 2005 and
Mistakes / Explanations:
“With regards of” → incorrect; corrected to “In.”
“ratio of recycling in all countries in the UK” → wordy and confusing; simplified to “the recycling rate in the UK.”
Sentence incomplete; needs continuation with trend data.
Band 4.5