Writing Task 1_ Bar Chart Sample

You should spend about 20 minutes on this task.

The chart below shows changes in average house prices in five different cities
between 1990 and 2002 compared with the average house prices in 1989.

Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and
make comparisons where relevant.

Write at least 150 words.

Sample Answer 1:
The bar chart compares the average prices of houses in five cities in 1990-1995
and 1996- 2002 with average prices in 1989. Overall it can be seen that while the
first period saw quite a significant drop in average prices compared to 1989 in
several cities, the following time frame tended to experience a reversal of this trend
in most of the locations.

From 1990-1995, three of the cities, namely New York, Tokyo, and London, saw
average prices that were around 5% to 7.5% lower than in 1989. On the contrary, the
cost of houses in the cities of Madrid and Frankfurt were slightly higher, by
approximately 2% and 2.5% respectively. 

Turning to 1996-2002, prices looked very different. Madrid and Frankfurt

continued to see higher prices comparative to 1989, but while in Madrid they were
now 4% higher, in Frankfurt they were only 2% above 1989 levels. In Tokyo, the only
city to remain in negative territory, prices were still below 1989 levels, standing at
-5%.

Sample Answer 2:

The given chart shows data on the changes in the prices of houses in two spans
of periods, 1990 – 1995 and 1996 – 2002 compared to the prices of 1989. As is
presented in the bar graph, prices of the house got down in New York, Tokyo and
London during 1990 to 1995 while the prices increased in London & New York during
1996 to 2002 compared to the prices of those houses in 1989.
According to the bar graph, the prices of houses in Madrid and Frankfurt
increased by 2-3% during 1990 – 1995 while the prices decreased in New York,
Tokyo and London by 5 to 8% in the same period compared to the prices of those
houses in 1989.
Interestingly during the period 1996 to 2002, the prices in all cities except
Frankfurt increased. Price increases of housing were 5% in New York, 4% Madrid,
and over 11% in London compared to their prices in 1989. The only city where the
prices decreased in 1996 to 2002 compared to the previous 5 years was Frankfurt.

Sample Answer 3:
The bar chart depicts the average house prices in five different cities between
1990 and 2002 compared with the prices of the year 1989, a period of 12 years.
Overall, it can be seen that the average house prices in London were shown
fluctuating throughout the year.

In details, the percentage of house prices in New York in between the year 1990
-1995 was accounted just 5 percent in a negative direction. However, the same
percentage in New York was on the positive side between 1996 - 2002. Similarly, the
average house prices in London and Tokyo (Japan) was presented in similar
percentage approximately7 percent in negative in 1990-1995 where the percentage
of London peaks at the highest position at 13 percent in 1996-2002 and Tokyo city
house price was still observed the on the negative side at 5 percent.
 The percentage change in average house price of Madrid (Spain) was only 1
percent in previous 6 years but it dramatically increased 4 times in next following
year. In 1990-1995 the average house price of Frankfurt (Germany) was only 2
percent but it was interesting that it declines and reached the same percentage as
Madrid (Spain) at 1 percent. 

Sample Answer 4:
The bar graph illustrates the mean variation in the price of a house in five various
cities when compared with that in 1989 in a period of 12 years from the year 1990.
Overall, it is clearly shown that majority of these five cities had their house prices
lower from 1990 to 1995 than that in the year 1989 whereas all cities showed an
upward trend in the average house prices between the years 1996 and 2002 except
Frankfurt.

First and foremost, the house prices in Tokyo were lower than that in the year
1989 throughout the given period. However, there was a rise in the house prices
from 1996 to 2002 than from 1990 to 1995 (-5% and approximately -7% respectively)
which was comparatively lower than that in 1989. Furthermore, every city had its
house prices rising over the period except Frankfurt in Germany which showed a
slight drop of about 1%.

Interestingly, London was the city that had the largest variation in house prices
among the five cities from 1990 to 2002 in comparison with that in 1989 (around 19%
in total). There was a bigger fluctuation in house prices in New York than in Madrid in
Spain (10% and nearly 5% correspondingly). 

Model Answer 5:
The bar chart demonstrates what changes five major cities experienced in
average house prices in the span of periods: 1990-1995 and 1996-2002, compared
with the average home value of 1989. Overall, house buying costs went down
considerably in New York, Tokyo and London between the period of 1990-1996
while it augmented dramatically in London with a gradual increase in New York and
Madrid cities during 1996-2002.

A closer look at the graph reveals the fact that average houses purchasing price
during 1900-1995 in Tokyo and London decreased by approximately 7% compared
with the average price in 1989. However, during the same period, Madrid and
Frankfurt experienced a property price rise by about 1% and 1.5% respectively.

Looking at the figures between 1996-2002, average house price in London went
up dramatically, almost 12%, the largest property price hike. Meanwhile, property
prices upsurged by 5%, just below 5% and around 1% consecutively in New York,
Madrid and Frankfurt. Interestingly, only London went through 5% decline in average
price of houses over the same period of time.
Writing Task 1_ Pie Chart sample
Model Graph 1:
You should spend about 20 minutes on this task.
The pie charts show the electricity generated in Germany and France
from all sources and renewables in the year 2009.
Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features
and make comparisons where relevant.
Write at least 150 words.
Model Answer
The four pie charts compare the electricity generated between Germany
and France during 2009, and it is measured in billions kWh. Overall, it can be
seen that conventional thermal was the main source of electricity in Germany,
whereas nuclear was the main source in France.
The bulk of electricity in Germany, whose total output was 560 billion
kWh, came from conventional thermal, at 59.6%. In France, the total output was
lower, at 510 billion kWh, and in contrast to Germany, conventional thermal
accounted for just 10.3%, with most electricity coming from nuclear power
(76%). In Germany, the proportion of nuclear power generated electricity was
only one fifth of the total.
Moving on to renewables, this accounted for quite similar proportions for
both countries, ranging from around 14% to 17% of the total electricity
generated. In detail, in Germany, most of the renewables consisted of wind and
biomass, totaling around 75%, which was far higher than for hydroelectric
(17.7%) and solar (6.1%). The situation was very different in France, where
hydroelectric made up 80.5% of renewable electricity, with biomass, wind and
solar making up the remaining 20%. Neither country used geothermal energy.
191 Words
Model Graph 2:
You should spend about 20 minutes on this task.
The pie chart shows the amount of money that a children's charity
located in the USA spent and received in one year, 2016.
Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features
and make comparisons where relevant.
Write at least 150 words.

Revenue Sources and Expenditures of a USA Charity in one year, 2016.

Model Answer
The pie charts show the amount of revenue and expenditures in 2016 for
a children’s charity in the USA. Overall, it can be seen that donated food
accounted for the majority of the income, while program services accounted for
the most expenditure. Total revenue sources just exceeded outgoings.
In detail, donated food provided most of the revenue for the charity, at
86%. Similarly, with regard to expenditures, one category, program services,
accounted for nearly all of the outgoings, at 95.8%.
The other categories were much smaller. Community contributions,
which were the second largest revenue source, brought in 10.4% of overall
income, and this was followed by program revenue, at 2.2%. Investment
income, government grants, and other income were very small sources of
revenue, accounting for only 0.8% combined.
There were only two other expenditure items, fundraising and management and
general, accounting for 2.6% and 1.6% respectively. The total amount of
income was $53,561,580, which was just enough to cover the expenditures of
$53,224,896.
161 Words