Legend: Academic word (?) New word
You should spend about 20 minutes on this task.
The charts below show the percentage of water used for different purposes in six areas of the world.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
Write at least 150 words.
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Write about the following topic:
Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
Sample Answer 1:
The provided illustration compares water consumption for three main purposes in six different areas namely: North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Central Asia and South East Asia. Overall, it is clear from the charts that Asian and African countries used more water for irrigation while North American and European countries used more water for their industrial needs.
To begin with, a major portion of water consumption could be observed in the agricultural sector and this was higher in African and Asian region than that of American and European parts. More than 80% water in Africa and Asia went in agricultural fields while this percentage was only 32% in Europe and 39% in North America. North America and Europe required more water in their industrial sectors than that of Asian and African countries. While half of the water was used in the industrial sector in North America and Europe, the percentage of that in African and Asian region ranged from 5% to 12%. Interestingly, water consumption in North and South America shows a contrasting scenario. Finally, more percentages of household water consumption could be observed in American and European continents than that of Asian and African regions.
Sample Answer 2:
The given pie charts show the comparison of water usage for three main purposes in six regions around the globe. An overview of the charts shows that the highest percentage of water use was for Agriculture in Central Asia with 88% compared to Europe with only 32%.
According to the given information, in all regions except Europe and North America, Agriculture water share was the most common usage, with over 80% of usage in Africa, Central and South East Asia followed by 71% in South America.
On the contrary, the highest percentage of water goes to Industry in North America and Europe and the proportions of Domestic use were there 13% and 15%, respectively. Usage of water for the Industrial purpose and Domestic use was lowest in Africa, Central & South East Asia and South America. Only 7% of water was used for Domestic usage in Asia and 9% in Africa. However, this usage was slightly higher in South America, which accounted for 19%. Turning to the Industrial usage, the proportion of water use in South East Asia was 12 %, followed by 10% in South America.
Sample Answer 3:
The pie charts compare the proportion of the trend in using water in six areas all over the world in term of three different categories.
Overall, it is clear that agriculture and industry are the most popular types in all six places globally. In addition, while the dominant purpose in the distribution of water consumption in North America and Europe is industry, the remaining areas tend to use water in agriculture.
Looking at more details, it can be seen that more than 70% water usage in Africa, South America and Asia regions belongs to agriculture and the highest proportion in this category is 88% which could be found in Central Asia. Less than half as much, namely 9%, the second option in using water in Central Asia in domestication, which also ranks the second in Africa and South America. Additionally, there is an opposite trend between two areas of Asia in the range statistic of industrial and domestic using water consumptive.
In Europe, by far the greatest percentage of water used goes to industry at 53%. Agriculture, which constitutes 32%, takes the second place among all categories. The lowest proportion of water consumption is domestic use, with 15%. Likewise, there is a similar situation in the North America with industrial use standing at 48%. This is followed by agriculture and domestication which have figure for 39% abd 13% respectively.
Sample Answer 4:
The given pie charts present information industrial, agricultural and domestic water usage in six different parts of the world. As is seen from the given illustration, water consumption for agricultural purpose is dominant in Asian, African and South American region whereas it is mainly used for industrial purpose in North America and Europe.
As the pie charts depict, more than 80% water is consumed for agriculture in Africa and Asian region. South American water consumption goes 71% for the same purpose. As those countries major percentages of water consumption are for agriculture, the percentages of water use in industries and houses are less than 20% in combination. Among those countries only South America uses 29% water for domestic and industrial purposes.
On the other hand, larger portion of water is used for industries in North America and Europe which are 48% and 53% respectively. They use less than 40% water for agriculture. Again the domestic water consumption is higher in America and Europe around 15% than that of Asian and African region.
Sample Answer 1:
Fast and safe transportation system and improved communication are two important aspects of the development of a country. Every government wants its citizens to commute safely and faster while the trade and business also depend on a solid transportation system. Thus when the question arises whether a government should focus on improving its railways or roads, people seems like have divided opinions. I personally agree that a government should spend more money on railways system as it is better to develop the railway transpiration system than developing roads.
Fast of all railways offers safe commuting both for the citizens and traders. The numbers of road accidents and casualties road vehicles cause in many countries are far more than that of accidents in the railway system. Thus investing more on a safe way of commuting is a much more prudent idea. Rails cause comparatively less environmental damage while the road vehicles are the main reason for increasing pollution around the world.
Second, rails can carry hundreds of people and several tonnes of goods while road transports can carry only a few people or fewer amounts of products at a time. Some shuttle trains are many times faster than that of private cars and public buses. Thus improved railways would save peoples’ valuable time every day. Thirdly, rail lines are usually away from the main cities and that is why some busy cities have no other alternatives than to improve their rail transportation system. Express trains can reduce the congestions in many cities and more investment to improve the railways is the only possible solutions in cities where a large number of people live in.
Finally, the population of the world is increasing rapidly and that is why investing more money on faster and safer transportation system is more logical than investing in the older transportation system. Railways will be future in transportation and investing on it is the better choice for any government.
In conclusion, I believe that a government, either in a developed or a developing country, should invest to build a safer, faster and more reliable transportation system and railways thus should always get a priority over the roads.
Sample Answer 2:
Some people believe that governments should build more railroads rather than highways and roads. To a certain point, I would agree with the statement, but I also believe that the decision of building railways or roads should be decided base on the natural condition of the area and the preference of citizens.
On the one hand, it is understandable if some people think that governments should expand more railroads rather than roads and streets. Firstly, it is obvious that when a country has extensive rail networks, it will positively affect the logistic cost. The selling price of many products would be cheaper since a single locomotive could carry tonnes of crops, goods or liquid products. Secondly, by building integrated subway stations in city centre areas, it will reduce traffic congestion. For example, as Singapore has a very good train network called MRT, most of the people rarely drive on their own vehicle. As a result, Singapore is free from traffic congestion and air pollution.
On the other hand, it is also important for governments to have some feasibility study regarding to the geological area before they disburse some money on railroads. It is a fact that some areas might not be feasible for railways, as those areas might be swamps or rocky mountain. Should the government enforced themselves in building railway networks there the investment cost might be unreasonable. For instance, the island of Borneo in Indonesia, is the one of the largest islands in the world, but most of the areas are swamps. It is not feasible for railroads but as the island have wide and long rivers such as the Mahakam and Kapuas, the government could focus more on building water transportation. The preference of citizens should also be considered before investing on construction on railroads or highways.
In conclusion, to a certain extent, I would agree that governments should build more railroads rather than roads and highways. But I do believe that governments should also make considerable measurement before they spend their money on railways. They must ensure that their areas are feasible and people prefer that transportation system.
Sample Answer 3:
It becomes a controversial topic these days about the effective method of transport systems. The government in many countries does a lot of research in searching which transport systems that should be subsidized heavily. Consequently, some assert that investing on railways is the best way to spend money on rather than prioritizing in roads. Personally, I completely agree with this policy for a couple of reasons.
To begin with, establishing new railways has a significant improvement in traffic problems. With the availability and efficiency of trains, it gravitates the high number of passengers, decreasing private car users, and reducing the congested traffic finally. Unlike building more roads, this policy will increase the car drivers instead.
Secondly, in term of environment concerns, the railways development definitely ease the air pollution in cities as well. Transportation is mainly responsible for global warming because of the high amount of toxic gases released from cars. As a result, introducing new eco-friendly engines such as sky-trains or subways will significantly reduce the amount of carbon emission to the atmosphere and tackle the global warming issue eventually.
Lastly, considering the land issue, building more roads requires a dramatic land. The deforestation and land degradation are negative consequences of this change. Although the construction of railroads requires some space, leading to deforestation as well, the need is still lesser than the space for the road construction.
In conclusion, there are several positive points of developing railroads as it promotes the use of public transport systems and of cause it is an environmentally friendly scheme. In contrast, the road extension leads to land destruction and creates more air pollution. Therefore, the government totally needs to spend the revenue on increasing railroads rather than roads.