[Tafisir a] Writing Practice Test 981718

The bar graph illustrates the proprotion of public, who were born in Australia and outside Australia, living in different places of Australia from 1995 to 2010. .

Overall, it is clear that most people lived in cities over the period, whether they were born in Australia or not. Moreover, there was a decrease in terms of living in towns and rural area throughout the period.

In 1995, there was a tendency of living in cities for both people, who were born in Australia or they were born outside the Australia. Around 50% people, who were Australian by birth, lived in city areas, whereas 20% and 30% people used to live in town and rural areas respectively. The highest percentage of people came from outside the Australia and the allotment was 60%. A negligible number of those people lived in towns, accounting for around 10%.

In 2010, there was a similar trend followed by the people of Australia, whether they were born in that country or not. Just over 60% people, who were born in Australia, lived in cities, but the people from outside Australia reached at its peak, accounting for 80%. Furthermore, same proportion shared by the residents of towns and rural areas,who were Australian by birth, and the rate is approximately 15%. Moreofver, an insufficient number of people, who came from outside Australia, lived in towns and rural areas, accounted for almost 10% and 5%, respectively.

There are many countries, which are suffering from the curse of poverty, taking economic help from other developed nations. Many commentators believe that rich countries should come forward for underdeveloped nations by giving them financial aid, whereas others feel that they should help these poor nations. To my mind, I firmly agree with the statement that states wealthy nations help needy countries by giving them financial support, which cannot resolve the issue entirely but to some extent. That's why I believe poorer countries should be benefited from other types of help from wealthy nations.

To commence with, there are many opulent countries who are beneficial towards the destitute countries by providing them financial help. This can resolve the problem of poorer nations in some aspects, but it is not an impactful approach for long run. Because there are many other challenges that ought to be alleviate from these substandard nations. For example, the citizens from impoverished countries has been suffering from unemployment problems.Moreover,they cannot improve their life due job crisis. In this circumstance, affluent nations can take some impactful steps, namley they can establish industries or provide them scholarships on the people of these countries, which are suffering from destitution. Therefore, residents of those poorer countries can resolve their unemployment problem.

However, providing financial aid to proverty-sticken nations is also one of the foremost actions. There are many times when a country is going to be insolvent. In this case, many affluent nations give financial aid so that the country can resolve the issue. Furthermore, in many times a country falls under a natural disaster. They need initial financial support from other wealthy nations in order to regain themselves from the problem. Having said that, providing financial support is beneficial for necessitous countries, which can resolve their issue to some extent.

To summing up, this essay argued, only giving money is not an impactful solution to resolve the problem of poverty as it is useful to certain cases, but not entirely. I supremely agree with the fact that says rich nations should provide other types of help to the opulent countries.