Q The graph below shows population changes in three different countries between 1960 and
2020. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make
comparisons where relevant.
Ans: The line graph compares the population changes in three distinct nations over a 60-year
period, from 1960 to 2020.
Overall, it is evident that all three countries experienced population growth, although the
rates of increase varied largely. Country A saw the most dramatic surge, overtaking the others
to become the most populous, while Country C showed the slowest and most stable growth
throughout the period.
In 1960, Country A had the lowest population at approximately 10 million. However, it
experienced an exponential rise, crossing the 50 million mark by 1990 and skyrocketing to
reach a peak of nearly 100 million by 2020. This steep upward trend indicates a rapid
demographic expansion unmatched by the other two nations.
In contrast, Country B started with a higher population of around 30 million in 1960. It
showed a steady but moderate increase, reaching roughly 60 million by the end of the period.
Country C, which began as the most populous nation with 40 million people, saw a very
gradual rise. By 2020, its population had only grown to about 50 million, making it the least
populous of the three, having been surpassed by Country B in the 1980s and Country A in the
1970s.
Part 2
Q Online learning is becoming increasingly popular. Some people believe that online courses
will eventually replace traditional university education. To what extent do you agree or
disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own
knowledge or experience.
Ans: The rise of digital technology has revolutionized education, making online
learning a viable alternative to traditional classroom settings. While some argue
that virtual courses will eventually render physical universities obsolete, I largely
disagree with this prediction. Although online learning offers flexibility, it cannot
fully replicate the holistic educational and social benefits provided by traditional
institutions.
Admittedly, the growth of online education is driven by undeniable advantages.
Primarily, it offers unparalleled flexibility and accessibility. Students can access
lectures from global experts without geographical constraints, often at a fraction
of the cost of traditional tuition. For example, platforms like Coursera allow a
student in rural Africa to learn from professors at Yale. This democratization of
knowledge suggests that for specific skill acquisition or professional
development, online platforms are superior and may indeed replace traditional
models.
However, a university education encompasses far more than the mere transfer of
academic knowledge. It provides a structured environment that fosters critical
thinking, debate, and interpersonal skills through face-to-face interaction. The
immediate feedback from a seminar discussion or the collaborative nature of
laboratory work is difficult to replicate virtually. Furthermore, universities function
as social hubs where young adults develop independence, build networks, and
engage in extracurricular activities. These 'soft skills' and life experiences are
integral to personal development and employability, aspects that solitary online
study struggles to provide.
Moreover, certain disciplines, such as medicine, engineering, and the performing
arts, require practical, hands-on training that digital platforms cannot adequately
support. A medical student cannot learn surgery solely through simulation;
physical presence and mentorship are essential.
In conclusion, while online learning will undoubtedly continue to expand and
complement traditional education, it is unlikely to fully replace it. The value of a
traditional university lies not just in its curriculum, but in the community, practical
experience, and developmental environment it offers, which remain unique and
indispensable.
Q: The graph below shows the percentage of internet users in four different countries from
2000 to 2020. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and
make comparisons where relevant.
Ans: The line graph illustrates the proportion of the population using the internet in four
selected countries over a two-decade period commencing in 2000.
Overall, internet usage increased significantly in all four nations. While Country A maintained
the highest percentage of users throughout the period, Country D witnessed the most rapid
growth, transforming from having no users to matching the leading countries.
In 2000, internet access was rare in Country C and non-existent in Country D (0%). Country A
led with 40% usage, followed by Country B at 20%. Over the next decade, Country A and B
saw steady growth, reaching 70% and 50% respectively by 2010. During this time, Country C
showed moderate improvement, rising to 20%.
The most striking change occurred in the second decade. Country D's usage surged, rocketing
to 85% by 2020, effectively catching up with Country A (90%) and Country B (85%). Country C
also saw growth but lagged behind, finishing the period with 50% of its population online.
Part2
Q Some people believe that individuals can do little to combat climate change and that it is
the responsibility of governments and large companies. To what extent do you agree or
disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own
knowledge or experience.
Ans:
The debate over who bears the primary responsibility for mitigating climate change is
contentious. While some assert that individual actions are negligible compared to the impact
of governments and corporations, I disagree with this fatalistic view. I believe that tackling the
climate crisis requires a synergistic approach where individual choices drive systemic change,
making personal responsibility just as crucial as legislative or corporate action.
It is undeniable that governments and multinational corporations possess the scale to effect
immediate, large-scale environmental changes. Governments can enforce carbon taxes and
renewable energy mandates, while corporations can overhaul supply chains to reduce
emissions. Without these high-level interventions, individual efforts to recycle or save energy
can seem futile. For instance, a single coal power plant emits more carbon in a day than a
small town does in a year. Therefore, the argument that institutional power is paramount
holds significant weight.
However, dismissing the role of the individual overlooks the power of consumer demand and
democratic will. Corporations produce goods to satisfy consumer markets; if individuals
collectively shift towards sustainable products—such as electric cars or plant-based diets—
companies are forced to adapt. Similarly, governments are elected by citizens. An active,
environmentally conscious electorate can pressure leaders to enact green policies. Thus,
individual actions are not isolated; they are the catalyst for larger structural shifts.
Furthermore, cumulative individual actions do have a tangible impact. If millions of people
reduce their energy consumption or waste, the aggregate reduction in carbon footprint is
substantial. Promoting a culture of responsibility ensures that sustainability becomes a
societal norm rather than just a top-down imposition.
In conclusion, while governments and companies hold the levers of power, they are
ultimately responsive to the will and behavior of individuals. Therefore, I believe it is a shared
responsibility; individual action is not only effective but essential in compelling the powerful
entities to act.
Q The graph below shows carbon dioxide emissions in four different countries from 1980 to
2020. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make
comparisons where relevant.
Ans: The line graph provides data on CO2 emissions (measured in metric tonnes per person)
in four separate countries between 1980 and 2020.
Overall, the trend for developed countries (A and B) was one of decline, whereas developing
countries (C and D) showed an upward trajectory. Despite these changes, Country A remained
the highest polluter per capita throughout the forty-year period.
In 1980, Country A had vastly higher emissions than the others, at 20 tonnes per person. This
figure gradually decreased to roughly 15 tonnes by 2020. Similarly, Country B started at 15
tonnes and saw a consistent drop, ending the period at roughly 8 tonnes.
Conversely, Countries C and D started with negligible emissions in 1980, at around 2 and 3
tonnes respectively. Both nations experienced steady increases in their carbon footprint. By
2020, Country C had overtaken Country B, rising to 10 tonnes per capita, while Country D
showed a more modest rise to 6 tonnes, remaining the lowest emitter of the group.
Part 2”:
Q Space exploration is a waste of money and resources. The money should instead be used to
solve problems on Earth. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your
answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Ans: The allocation of vast financial resources to space exploration often draws criticism, with
many arguing that these funds should be redirected to address pressing terrestrial issues like
poverty and disease. However, I strongly disagree with the notion that space exploration is a
waste. I believe that investment in space science yields technological innovations and long-
term survival benefits that far outweigh the costs, ultimately helping to solve problems on
Earth.
Critics rightly point out that billions are spent on missions to Mars while millions starve on
Earth. From a purely humanitarian perspective, the immediate alleviation of suffering appears
to be a higher moral priority. However, this view assumes a zero-sum game where money
spent on space is money lost to Earth. In reality, the budget for space agencies like NASA is a
tiny fraction of global military or luxury spending. Redirecting space funds would not solve
systemic issues like poverty, which are often political rather than purely financial.
Moreover, space exploration drives technological innovation that directly benefits life on
Earth. Satellite technology, developed for space, is now essential for monitoring climate
change, predicting natural disasters, and facilitating global communication. Medical
advancements, such as improved imaging technology and water purification systems,
originated from space research. Therefore, these investments are not merely looking
outwards; they provide tools to manage our own planet better.
Finally, exploring the cosmos addresses fundamental existential risks. With Earth facing
threats from overpopulation and resource depletion, space exploration offers the long-term
possibility of colonizing other planets, ensuring the survival of the human species. It also
inspires future generations to pursue science and engineering, fostering a culture of problem-
solving.
In conclusion, while the cost of space exploration is high, it is an investment in humanity's
future. The technological spin-offs and the potential for sustaining our civilization make it a
necessary endeavour, not a wasteful extravagance.
Q The graph below shows life expectancy in different regions of the world from 1950 to 2020.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make
comparisons where relevant.
Ans
The line graph depicts the changes in life expectancy across four global regions
spanning from 1950 to 2020.
Overall, life expectancy increased in all regions, reflecting global improvements
in health and living standards. Region A consistently had the highest life
expectancy, while Region D had the lowest, although the gap between the highest
and lowest narrowed significantly over the 70 years.
In 1950, life expectancy in Region A stood at 65 years, significantly higher than
Region D, which was merely 40 years. Region B and C lay in between, at around
55 and 45 years respectively. Over the subsequent decades, all regions saw a
positive trend.
Region A's growth was steady, reaching 80 years by 2020. However, the most
dramatic progress was seen in Region D, where life expectancy surged,
particularly after 1990, to reach 65 years by 2020. This reduced the disparity with
Region A from 25 years to 15 years. Regions B and C followed parallel upward
paths, ending the period at approximately 75 and 70 years respectively.
Part2
Q Globalisation is leading to the loss of traditional cultures and languages. To
what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include
any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Ans :
Globalisation, driven by the rapid exchange of goods, information, and people, has
undoubtedly reshaped the world. Many fear this process is eroding traditional cultures and
languages, creating a homogenous global monoculture. I largely agree with this sentiment, as
the dominance of Western media and the English language threatens local identities, though I
also acknowledge that globalisation can offer tools to preserve them.
The primary argument for the loss of culture is the overwhelming influence of Western,
particularly American, consumerism. Global brands like McDonald's and Nike, along with
Hollywood movies, are ubiquitous, often displacing local traditions and arts. When young
people value global pop culture over their own heritage, traditional practices decline.
Furthermore, the necessity of English for international business and the internet has
marginalized minority languages. Linguists predict that half of the world's languages may
vanish by the end of the century as speakers shift to dominant global languages for economic
opportunity.
However, it is important to note that globalisation is not solely destructive. The same
technology that spreads global culture can be used to revitalize local ones. Social media and
the internet allow isolated communities to document their languages, share their music, and
connect with diasporas, giving them a global platform they never had before. For example,
indigenous groups in New Zealand and Canada have successfully used modern media to
revive interest in their native tongues.
Nevertheless, without active preservation efforts, the passive pressure of market forces tends
to favor homogenization. The economic convenience of a shared global culture is a powerful
solvent against the nuance of local tradition.
In conclusion, while globalisation provides tools that *could* save cultures, its natural
trajectory currently favors cultural erosion. The dominance of major economic powers tends
to dilute unique cultural identities, making the fear of loss well-founded unless conscious
efforts are made to protect diversity.
Q The graph below shows unemployment rates in three European countries from 2000 to
2020. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make
comparisons where relevant.
ANS
The line graph compares the unemployment rates in three European nations (Country X, Y,
and Z) over a 20-year period from 2000 to 2020.
Overall, the unemployment trends varied significantly across the three countries. While
Country X experienced a gradual decline, Country Y saw a dramatic fluctuation with a sharp
peak in the middle of the period, and Country Z remained relatively stable with low
unemployment throughout.
In 2000, Country X had the highest unemployment rate at 12%. This figure steadily decreased
year by year, dropping to 6% by 2010 and finishing at 4% in 2020, indicating a strong economic
recovery.
In contrast, Country Y started at 8% but suffered a severe spike in jobless numbers between
2008 and 2012, likely due to economic recession, peaking at 15%. However, it recovered in the
latter half of the decade, falling back to 7% by 2020. Country Z maintained the most
consistent performance, hovering between 3% and 5% for the entire duration, ending at 4.5%
in 2020.
PART 2
Q Young people should be free to choose their own careers, without interference from their
parents. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include
any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
ANS
The question of how much influence parents should have over their children's career choices
is a common source of familial tension. While parents often have their children's best
financial interests at heart, I strongly agree that young people should have the autonomy to
choose their own career paths. Personal passion is a key driver of success and satisfaction,
which parental 'interference' often undermines.
The strongest argument for autonomy is that job satisfaction is intrinsically linked to personal
interest. A career spans a significant portion of one’s life; spending it in a profession chosen by
someone else can lead to resentment and burnout. For example, a student forced into
medicine by parents who value status may struggle with the emotional demands of the job,
whereas they might have excelled as a graphic designer. When individuals choose their own
path, they are more motivated to overcome challenges and achieve genuine success.
Furthermore, the job market is evolving rapidly. Parents often base their advice on the
economic reality of the past, valuing stability in traditional fields like law or engineering. They
may not understand the potential of emerging industries in technology or the creative arts. By
interfering, parents might inadvertently steer their children away from lucrative and fulfilling
modern opportunities.
However, 'interference' should be distinguished from 'guidance'. Young people, lacking
experience, can benefit from their parents' wisdom regarding work ethic and financial
planning. But this should remain advisory, not mandatory. The final decision must rest with
the individual who will live that life.
In conclusion, while parental advice is valuable, the ultimate choice of career should belong
to the young person. Freedom of choice fosters responsibility, motivation, and happiness,
whereas forced choices often lead to mediocrity and regret.
Q The graph below shows the number of tourist arrivals in three different countries from 2005
to 2020. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make
comparisons where relevant.
ANS The chart illustrates the changes in tourist arrivals for three countries (France, USA, and
Malaysia) between 2005 and 2020.
Overall, France and the USA experienced growth in tourism numbers over the 15-year period,
while Malaysia saw a fluctuation and eventual decline. The USA overtook France to become
the most visited destination by the end of the period.
In 2005, France was the most popular destination with 60 million visitors, followed by the
USA with 50 million. Malaysia trailed with 20 million. From 2005 to 2015, all three countries
saw an upward trend. France rose to 70 million, while the USA saw a sharper increase,
matching France at 70 million in 2012 and continuing to rise. Malaysia also saw growth,
peaking at 30 million in 2015.
However, the final five years showed divergence. The USA continued its robust growth,
reaching 90 million visitors by 2020. France plateaued at around 75 million. Conversely,
Malaysia experienced a downturn, dropping back to 25 million arrivals by 2020.
PART 2
Q University education should be free for all students. To what extent do you agree or
disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own
knowledge or experience.
ANS :
The rising cost of higher education has sparked a global debate on whether
university should be free for everyone. While the idea of universal free education
is socially appealing, I disagree that it should be completely free for *all*
students. I believe a mixed model, where costs are subsidized but not entirely
eliminated for those who can afford them, is more sustainable and equitable.
Proponents of free education argue that education is a human right and that
tuition fees entrench inequality. If university is free, talented students from poor
backgrounds are not deterred by debt, leading to greater social mobility.
Countries like Germany and Norway demonstrate that this can produce a highly
educated workforce without burdening young people with loans. This ultimately
benefits the economy by maximizing the potential of the entire population.
However, making university completely free for everyone places a massive
burden on the state budget. This can divert funds from other critical areas like
healthcare or primary education. Furthermore, if university is free, it may become
devalued, encouraging students to enroll in degrees with poor employment
prospects simply because it is the 'next step', leading to a surplus of graduates
and a shortage of vocational workers.
Moreover, those from wealthy families do not need state support. Subsidizing the
education of the rich using taxpayer money—often collected from the working
class—is regressive. A fairer system is one where fees exist but are means-
tested, or where loans are repayable only upon reaching a high income threshold.
This ensures the university remains funded and accessible without draining
public resources unnecessarily.
In conclusion, while access to university should be based on merit rather than
ability to pay, a blanket policy of free education for all is financially and
structurally flawed. A balanced approach that protects the poor while asking
those who can afford it to contribute is the most pragmatic solution.