Legend: Academic word (?) New word
You should spend about 20 minutes on this task.
The bar chart below shows the percentage of unemployed graduates, aged 20-24, in one European country over a two-year period.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and making comparisons where relevant.
Write at least 150 words.
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Write about the following topic.
Many people assume that the goal of every country should be to produce more materials and goods.
To what extent do you agree or disagree that constantly increasing production is an appropriate goal?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
Firstly, generally speaking, graduate unemployment rose for both groups from 2008 to 2009. Although women's unemployment levels were the same for April 2008, July 2008 and April 2009, all other figures rose. Secondly, there was generally more unemployment for both genders during the autumn and winter months, with figures for both genders peaking in October (e.g. for males: 16 percent in October 2008 and 22 percent October 2009).
Perhaps the most striking trend, though, is for a greater percentage of male than female graduates to be out of work at all times of the year. Also there is greater seasonal variation for men than women: the gender difference is much more marked in October of both years and this reaches a peak in October 2009, where there is an eight percent difference between women and men.
Finally, employment of women graduates is relatively stable throughout the whole two-year period. It only varies by eight percent (six percent in April 2008, to 14 percent in October 2009). By contrast, men's unemployment fluctuates more noticeably, with a range from eight to 22 percent.
Many people make the assumption that the production of more and more goods is always a good thing for all economies. They say that this growth generates wealth, not just for the wealthy few but for all strata of society. They argue that increasing production brings immediate benefit to rich industrialists but that, in turn, they provide employment for, and buy goods and services from, other less wealthy people in the community. Also it is argued that the wealthy individuals will pay more in taxes and thus the money from growth will benefit everyone, through improved health and education, and that a happier, more stable and more developed society will result.
However, other people argue that such growth in production can have the opposite effect. They contend that any riches tend to be claimed by the few and trickle down to very few others in the community. Also, wealthy people know how to use a variety of devious measures to evade paying tax. Another argument against such growth is that even if this wealth does filter down to all citizens it does not, in itself, bring about a better society. Instead it can produce a consumerist mentality which draws a simple equation between having 'things' and being happy. This is bad for the moral and spiritual life of the country and also can damage the environment as people want more and more objects, creating pollution through production and disposal of waste.
On balance, I feel that a compromise position is the healthiest one - some economic growth should be encouraged as long as there are safeguards intended to ensure fair distribution of wealth and reduce the negative impact on the environment.