Tests Taken: 278605
Published on: 15 Nov 2018
You should spend about 20 minutes on this task.
The graph below shows the proportion of the population aged 65 and over between 1940 and 2040 in three different countries.
Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant.
You should write at least 150 words.
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Some people think that the most important thing about being rich is it gives a person the opportunity to help other people.
Do you agree or disagree?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
You should write at least 250 words.
The line graph depicts the percentage of senior citizens, who are older than 65 years, over a century in three countries, namely- the United States, Sweden and Japan, from 1940 and also gives projection till 2040. A glance at the graph makes it clear that Japan will have more percentage of the aged population in the future despite its fewer percentage of this population in the early 40s and one-fourth of the world population will be older people in 2040.
The illustration shows that the average old population in 1940 was between 5 to 10 percent in all the three countries and the USA had the highest percentage of aged people while it was lowest in Japan. The ageing population in the USA grew steadily and reached up to 15% in the year 2000. It is expected to be doubled and reach nearly 25% in 2040. Similarly, in Sweden, the percentage of aged people grew from about 7% in 1940 to 15% in 2000 and is heading towards 25% in 2040. In contrast, the aged population in Japan remained the lowest, which was less than 5% until 2005 and expected to grow and reach the highest point, about 30 percentage, in 2040. The graph clearly reveals that the ratio of aged population will increase in 2040 and almost one of every four citizens in these three countries would be over 65 years old in 2040.
It is indubitable that money is very important for helping others. However, I disagree with the It is indubitable that money is very important for helping others. However, I disagree with the given statement that it is the most essential thing in terms of a chance to help the needy. I believe that there are numerous ways of helping the underprivileged, and monetary aid is certainly not the best forms of aid.
My first argument to support my viewpoint is that giving money to the poor would be a very shortsighted approach. It would satiate their needs for some time, but ultimately they have to be made capable of standing on their own. Providing education and job training is better way of helping them. For example, my friend’s mother, teaches children of the slum area every evening. She is herself not very rich, but she is helping in better ways than money can do.
Secondly, it is not always the financial help, which is needed by people. A timely helping hand when a person is suffering is better than helping with money. For instance, in natural calamities, such as earthquakes and floods, the immediate need of people is food and medical care. Many college students volunteered to carry food and medicines to the needy, when there was a flood in some areas of Punjab, a few years ago. Fresh medical graduates also went and stayed there and helped people with immediate medical care. In times of crises, such help outstrips any help that money can provide.
Opponents would argue that only the rich are in a position to help the poor, as people need money for even the basic necessities of life such as food, clothing and shelter. Even providing education and job training to the destitute, needs money. They have a point, but I still believe that the help in terms of personal effort provided by those who are, themselves, not so affluent is equally good.
To sum up, if one is rich, he is in a better situation to help others who need money and all the things which money can provide. However, I reiterate my view by saying that to help others, one need not be rich as help can be provided in many better ways than with money.