Sample 26:

The line graph below shows changes in the amount and type of
fast food consumed by Australian teenagers from 1975 to 2000.

The line graph illustrates consumption of three types of fast food by Australian
teenagers between 1975 and 2000.

Overall, fish and chips consumption rate decreased significantly, while the figures
for pizza and hamburgers rose substantially over the 25-year period, with
hamburgers becoming the most popular fast food.

In 1975, fish and chips were by far the most commonly eaten fast food, at about
100 times per year. The figure fluctuated during the late 1970s and early 1980s,
before reaching a low of just under 40 times a year in 2000.

In contrast, teenagers ate hamburgers only around 10 times a year at the start of
the period. However, this figure rose dramatically throughout the 25 years,
reaching approximately 100 times per year in 2000. Pizza consumption followed a
similar upward trend, increasing steadily from about 5 times a year in 1975 to
around 85 times in 2000, though it remained slightly less popular than
hamburgers.
The graph below shows the population for India and China since the
year 2000 and predicts population growth until 2050.

The line graph compares the populations of India and China from 2000 to 2050,
with figures after 2025 representing projections.

Overall, both countries experienced population growth from 2000 to 2025.

However, while India’s population is expected to continue increasing throughout
the period, China’s population is predicted to decline after 2030, with India
eventually overtaking China.

In 2000, India’s population stood at roughly 1.0 billion, compared with about 1.25
billion in China. Both figures rose gradually over the next 25 years, reaching
approximately 1.4 billion in India and 1.43 billion in China by 2025.

By 2030, the populations of the two countries are projected to be almost

identical, at around 1.43 billion. After this point, India’s population is expected to
keep rising, peaking at just under 1.6 billion by 2050. In contrast, China’s
population is predicted to fall slightly, dropping to about 1.3 billion by the end of
the period.
The graph below shows the different modes of transport used to
travel to and from work in one European city in 1960, 1980 and 2000.

The bar chart illustrates the proportion of commuters using four different modes of
transport — car, bus, train, and tube — to travel to work in a European city in 1960,
1980, and 2000.

Overall, car usage increased markedly over the period, while bus usage declined
significantly. In contrast, the proportion of commuters using trains and the tube
remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations.

In 1960, buses were the most popular mode of transport, accounting for approximately
38% of commuters, followed by the tube at about 27%. Train travel accounted for
around 19%, while only 7% of people used cars to travel to work. By 1980, the figures
for train and bus users were similar, at roughly 26% and 28% respectively. Car usage
had increased to around 23%, slightly higher than the tube at 22%.

By 2000, cars had become the dominant mode of commuting, used by approximately
37% of workers. Bus usage fell sharply to about 15%, while tube and train usage
remained relatively steady at around 25% and 22% respectively, maintaining their
positions as the second and third most common transport modes.
The pie charts below show units of electricity production by fuel source in
Australia and France in 1980 and 2000.

The pie charts compare Australia and France in terms of electricity production from
five different fuel sources in 1980 and 2000. Or,

The pie charts compare Australia and France in terms of the amount of electricity
produced, measured in units, using five different fuel sources in 1980 and 2000.

Overall, electricity generation increased in both countries over the period. While coal
remained the primary fuel in Australia, nuclear power became the dominant source in
France by 2000. Additionally, the two countries had clearly different fuel preferences
throughout the period.

In 1980, Australia generated half of its electricity from coal, followed by hydro and
natural gas, each contributing 20 units, while oil accounted for the remaining 10
units. Nuclear power was not used. In contrast, France produced equal amounts
from coal and natural gas at 25 units each, with nuclear power at 20 units, oil at 15
units, and hydro contributing only 5 units.

By 2000, Australia’s total electricity output had risen to 170 units, with coal remaining
the dominant source at 130 units and hydro providing 36 units. Oil and natural gas
contributed only 2 units each. In France, total production increased to 180 units, with
nuclear power as the main source at 126 units. Coal and oil contributed 25 units each,
while hydro and natural gas accounted for only 2 units each.

Key to remember, here talking about units. So don’t use percentage or

proportion.

The pie charts below show the average household expenditure in

japan and Malaysia in the year 2010.

The pie charts compare Japan and Malaysia in terms of average household spending
on five different categories in 2010. Or,
The pie charts compare average household spending in Japan and Malaysia across
five different categories in 2010.

Overall, both Japanese and Malaysian households allocated the largest proportion of
their budgets to three categories: housing, food, and other goods and services.
Expenditure on health care and transport was notably higher in Japan than in
Malaysia, roughly/exactly twice as much in each case.

In Malaysian households, the greatest proportion of spending was on housing, which

accounted for 34% of total expenditure, compared with just 21% in Japan. Japanese
households, by contrast, spent the largest share of their income on other goods and
services, at 29%, while this category represented 26% of Malaysian spending.
Spending on food was relatively similar in both countries, accounting for 24% in Japan
and 27% in Malaysia.

Health care and transport accounted for the smallest proportions of household
spending in both countries. In Malaysia, these categories represented 3% and 10%,
respectively, whereas in Japan the corresponding figures were approximately
double, at 6% for health care and 20% for transport.

Key to remember = Allocated to, but- spending on, expenditure on

 the greatest proportion of spending was on housing = proportion because talked

about only 1 category, “Housing”
 Health care and transport accounted for the smallest proportions of household =
proportions because talking about 2/multiple categories, “Health care and transport”
The table below gives information about the underground
railway systems in six cities.

The table compares six cities in terms of their underground railway networks, showing
the opening date, route length in kilometers, and annual passenger numbers.

Overall, the three oldest systems — London, Paris, and Tokyo — have substantially
longer routes and serve significantly higher annual passenger numbers than those in
Washington, Kyoto, and Los Angeles.

London’s system, opened in 1863 and covering 394 kilometers, is the oldest and
longest of the six cities. Paris and Tokyo, opened in 1900 and 1927, have shorter routes
of less than 200 kilometers, but they carry the highest number of passengers each year,
with 1,191 million in Paris and 1,927 million in Tokyo.

Kyoto and Los Angeles were the last cities to open their underground railway networks.
They have the shortest routes, at 11 and 28 kilometers, and carry the fewest
passengers each year, with 45 million in Kyoto and 50 million in Los Angeles. By
contrast, Washington DC’s system is relatively long, at 126 kilometers, and serves a
larger number of passengers annually, at 144 million.
Here are 3 useful techniques for describing percentages:

1. English speakers usually put the percentage at the start of the sentence.
2. Use while, whereas or “compared to/with” (after a comma) to add a comparison.
 Note: We don't say "comparing to”
 We say "2 million" not "2 millions
 When there is no number, we do write "millions of".

3. Use "the figure for" to add another comparison in the next sentence.

Use these examples as models for your own sentences:

 In 1999, 35% of British people went abroad for their holidays, while only 28% of
Australians spent their holidays in a different country. The figure for the USA stood at
31%.
 Around 40% of women in the UK had an undergraduate qualification in 1999, compared
to 37% of men. The figures for the year 2000 rose slightly to 42% and 38% respectively.

The language for comparing

Here are some good phrases for comparing. See if you can adapt them to other task 1 questions.

 The chart compares... in terms of the number of...

 ...is by far the most... OR ...has by far the highest number of...
 the figures for... tend to be fairly similar
 In second place on the chart is...*
 The number of... is slightly higher than...
 Only four other countries have...
 ...all with similar proportions of...
 ...is the only country with a noticeably higher proportion of...
Number of passengers – passenger count (no ‘s’) – passenger
numbers

The total number of visitors to the island increased

The island’s total visitor count increased (singular)

The island’s total visitor numbers increased.