Writing task 1: The amount of fish and meat consumed in a European country from 1979 to 2004

AN COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEAT IN A EUROPEAN COUNTRY

The graph illustrates the amount of fish and meat consumed in a Europan country over a period of 25 years.
Among 4 categories, it can be seen that there was a downward trend in the consumption of fish and different types of meat, except for chicken consumption. In addition, fish was always the least favorite type consumed throughout the period.

Overall, if we look at the consumption of beef and lamb, these two figures shared a similarity. They both sustainably decreased over the period shown. More specifically, beef consumption dropped by haft from about 230 down to more than 100 over the 1979 to 2004 period. Meanwhile, the figure for lamb fell from 150 to approximately 60 during the period.

On the other hand, the amount of chicken consumed witnessed a noticeably increase from nearly 150 to a peak of roughly 250 grams per person weekly, making chicken be the most favored type. Meanwhile, there was a marginal drop in fish consumption in the first year of the period. Then, the figure remained stable at about 50 grams later over the years.

• 
  task1cam7test2.pn.png
  

There are two types of graphs indicated in this image. For better identification, task accuracy, and C+C scoring, you should be specific about it. Refer to the image as:


@thanhtien2512

The image provided indicates measurements in line and dotted graphs.

Why will this specific identification help your score via presentation? Such a reference will help the reader create a mental image of the measurements, assuming the reader does not have a reference image to look at. You may even specifiy which item is using the said graph method for further clarity. Eitherway, you can only improve your score in the sections previously mentioned.


Good reference but not really informative. As the actual years were mentioned in the image, you are expected to somehow, reference these in the presentation as well. That is, regardless of your variety in year reference. Your reference could affect the C+C as there is no actual year reference and also, reduce the GRA score due to the lack of proper understanding this brings to the reader. The reader is left with questions with regards to that part of your report, this making it stressful to understand. anytime that happens, these two sections of scoring will be affected.



There is a problem with this presentation as it lacks clear references to the indicated products. Since you had already mentioned fish and chicken, you should have added the reference to beef and lamb. The non-reference added to the lack of clarity in this presentation. Definitely affecting your C+C score in a negative manner. Anytime you lack information in your paragraph, your score in that rubic consideration is lowered. You get individual scores before getting a final collective score. So consistent low scores in the sectional scoring will result in a low overall score.


As compared to chicken? Why did you suddenly stop with the comparison analysis at this point? It is a requirement of the essay report. The data must show a comparative analysis at all times. You should have done it in this part as well. Though this ommission will not have a serious effect on your score, you mossed out on increasing your TA score further with that reference at this point.

Overall, an acceptable essay. The points for improvement referred to here are observations based on score increasing considerations that you should have taken into account while drafting the essay.

@thanhtien2512
You should replace with "the line graph"
"a noticeably increase", "noticeable" not "noticeably"
"making chicken be the most favored type", you can write that", and chicken became the popular choice for residents in a European country", I think the sentence will be better.

"Among 4 categories", I think that this sentence is not necessary
"Then, the figure remained stable at about 50 grams later over the years", you can use another way to explain " before remaining stable..." or ", which was followed by a stability...". I think your analysis is fine, but some words are not used correctly.