Grap hs Descrip tion

(j) •,.

~ -A •
T tHREE''
120
Crude oil prices, 2012 1il I

0
I
Grapns '
100
I
~ 80

~,.
.a
..... 60
11

■
~
Cru de oil pric es, 2012 .!!
,,0
J anua
. . ntal axis shows the mon ths from ry
40
oil price s. The_ ho~z od II rs/ba rrel.
This is a line graph of 2012 crude s m
O
a
indicates the price shows a decrease I
to July whereas the vertical axis . • d t on the whole it el. 20
' perio ' ye d per barr In the next m · thn
the give n
The overall tren d is varia ble in th O II
i:::s e to its max imu m poin t a~;l '
a little more an lO c~
J anua ry a barre! of crude oil cost sed a nd reac hed its minim 0
Febr uary, the price d~cr easednextto 99 dolla rs/ba rre!· In M9:1" decrea um 0
February March April May June
thre e mon ths it stea dily January
dollars, and then durm g the months
.
poin t at 85 dollars per barr el in June year; it only decr ease d in the
the first five months of the th h
· a , e price was QUI e g fior
All m
II th · ·t
sixth mon th. The re were ups and
hi h
downs in oil prices. It fluctuate
ard.
d
. h
m t e °
span
f6
mon s, aving
i
two downward trends, and one upw
/u, te,jede~
span
n~
crude oil
barrel
hord6 .·· ~-
House pri ces , UK

---------------------------- -- -- -
----

II Hou se pric es, UK

-.,::.:____,
e prices changed in twenty year
s, from 1991 to 2010. The 200,000 r - - - - - - - - - - - - ---=-c=
This line grap h shows how hous pric es in pounds. In 1991, the
while the vertical axis shows the
horizontal axis shows the year s, in the next four years, __ __ __ _..J
t - - - - - - - - - - - - -~ (_
Ther e was a sligh t incr ease
00 pounds.
average house price was about 60,0 visible. Betw een 1995 and 2000, house 150,000
ing tendency became
but it was only in 1995 that the grow ds. The incr ease was much
in 2000 they reached 100,000 poun
prices grew slowly but steadily, and 150,000 pounds. --------
faster in the following thre e year
s, and in 2003 an aver age hous e cost
ed
mor
dow
e than
n a bit late r, so it was 100,000 t - - - - - - - - - --=• - - -
following year, but the pace slow
The grow th was even faster in the poun ds. Then cam e a year of stag nati on and a
than 200,000 ---
only in 2006, whe n it reached more 2010 the pric e was 250,000 --- -------------
in the following two years, so by 50,000 - ! - - " - - - -
big leap in 2008, this was repeated
pounds.
s higher in 2010 than in 1991.
To sum it up, prices were four time

price
visible
dr
lllJ/uJJ,l
average
pace
6JkJ8
iUem =:J
I 96
- @
~
~
L-✓-- ---_G_,_a-, . :.__ph_:s:. . D=--:e.:..sc::r~ip~ti.:..o::.n
¥'' Graphs Description

• •
This
Decl ine of the GDP in Greece

bar chart
•
show s the difference betwe en
h t' ted and the real decline of the Greek
t e es ima shows t h e percent age. The est'
t ' al is
GDP. The horizontal axis shows the ye~rs, t~e ver ic ax In 2010'
and the real numb ers are indicated with differ
a lot
ent
highe
colou
r,
rs.
4.9%. In
the estim ated d . l!nated
. echne was
the f~!owmg f:ar the estimated
7

6
Decl ine of the GDP in Greece

6.9% 6.2%

I
3.5%, while the real value of the decline was the
previous year, 6:9%. T is was e year -:Vhen
value was more than double than that of the
neare st to each other, still, the real value was a bit higher ..
QI 5
4.9%
estim ated and the real values were the
7.1%. In 2012 both the estimated and the
between them was bigger than before, 1.5%. t
62
real value were lower, 4.7% and , %, but the
differenc~ .!!
C
QI
~
QI
a.
4 II
these years than the eS imate d decline, and the
To sum it up, the real decline was higher in all
3

values were close to each other only in one year,

2011.

value trtik
2
,,
decline csokkenis
c=-_ _ __
estimated beurilt

2011 2012
years
■ estimated ■ real

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- i'

Labo r mar ket emp loym ent rate, 2010

t rate ofpeople between 15 and 64 in 7 countries

This bar chart shows the labor mark et employmen
the count ries, the vertical axis indicates the pdrcentage. 71%of
in 2010. The horizontal axis shows
employment rate is almost the sa:ne in the United
the Germ an people of this age have a job. The
slight ly lower, but still quite high in the Czech Republic and in
Kingdom at 70%. The rate is than
but in Italy and Hungary employmen t is lower
France, at 65 and 63%. In Poland it is 60%,
that, at 58 and 55%.
lic,
have high employmen t rates, the Czech Repub
All in all, Germany and the United Kingdom have low emplo ymen t rate,
Italy and Hungary
France and Poland have medium rate, and
unfor tunat ely Hung ary has the lowes t.

munkaer6piac medium ki!upe,s

labor market
rate aniny

I98
 (;ii) /iiJ'\
~ Graph s Descr iption Graphs Descri ption 'i-" ·,.
Unemp loymen t rate, EU Unemp loymen t rate, EU
20
. 5 EU countrie s in three differen t years 2000 2 18
This bar chart shows unemplo yment rates m . h t I•cal axis shows the perce~t a ' 005
ver ge, While
and 2010. The horizon tal axis shows the countrie s, t e 16
the differen t years are marked with differen t colours.
In 2000 Poland had the highest unemplo yment rate, lG%, Franhcelhad rtates ~ettwheen 10% and 14
8'!!
8%, German y and Hungar y had rates between ° an to o,h
d 6'!! and t he towes
h.
was m e UK• Where
• Poland t 17
' ad -8%. It also
.... 12

I it didn't reach 6%. Five years later unemplo

· · • d
rose s1gmfic antly m German y, to 11%, an s owe
yment rose t . e ig es_ mF
h d a slight
it fell in the UK and it reached an all-time low of 5%. I1;1 0lO,
2
increase m ranee an Hu ngary, but
unempl oyment was much lower
"
~
~
!.
10

8
9%, and in German y 7%, but it went much higher m Hungar y, at ll.S% and United
in Poland, 6
Kingdo m, almost 8%.
t changes were in Poland and
To sum it up, there were a lot of changes in these years; the biggeS
4

in Hungar y. 2

0
munkanelk ii.lisig slight Unit ed France Poland Hungary
unemployment
j elenl6sen Kingdom
s i ~tly countries
■ 2000 ■ 2005 ■ 2010

. ,

------------------ ------ --- --- --- .. ~·. ·- ,·

~ r...,_,

-
•l1•

Wome n in employ ment accord ing to age Wome n in emplo yment accord ing to age
Hunga ry, 2010 Hunga ry, 2010

I This pie chart shows the percent age of women in employm ent accordi
2010. The pie is divided into five segmen ts accordin g to the
differen t colours. One group, between 15 and 19, is almost invisible
age groups.
n v l o age, in Hungary,
", hich are shown by
on the d .. x t . Only 0.3% of the
11.7% 0.3% 5.4%

under-repr,·sen ted, only 5.4% of

employe d women belong to this group. The next age-gro up is also
The biggest segmen t is that of the wc,men between 25 and
employe d women are between 20 and 24.
of working women belong to this segmen t, which is more, than two thirds of the whole.
49. 67.2%
a qua rter of the whole.
The two older age groups, 50 to 54, and 55+ together represe nt about
25 and 49, and older women
To sum it up, we can say that most working women are between
have a greater share of the job market than the very young ones.

according to
invisible
ualami uerin.t
_ _ _ _ ldt/uJJat/an
under•repr esented
share
alulrep~
risz
J
nJc!U

■ 50-54 ■ 55+
1120·24 ■ 2 5-49
■ 15-19

1100
 ltii)
Graphs Descript ion ~
Graphs D escription

Business organisati ons

t by firm size in 2010. Both pies are divid d
e
EU employm ent
by firm size, 2010
US employm ent
by firm size, 2010
~lI
e indicated by d · f
d th EU employmen
These two pie charts show US an Me~ium and Small fir_m s, w
. segment, but m the
h· h
J;
4~ of people are e L ferent
. . . tnployed I
into four segments, Micro, Large,
colours On both charts Large is the b1gges~uro ean employees. Medmm-s1z e companies employ
by Jar~ companies, compared to the 38:1' if ver/15% in the US, while 19% of total per centages in
about the same percentage of people, whic c~mall and Micro firms. People are e~ployed by srna11
the EU The biggest differences are between d t the 9% of the EU. The rate IS the opposite i II
I firms i~ the US at a proportion of 31%, c_om:a::d
the Micro firm segment, 5% of the America '
3~% of the
.
EU employees work in t h is segrnen:
. th US and the EU.
· · uite different m e
As we can see, employment by firm size ,s q
ardny ■ M icro ■ ur1e ■ MM/um ■StNII
poportion
firm
cover
clg
lefed C

------------- ----------- ---- --- --

~
Top soft drinks companie s USA Market share
Top soft drinks compani es Top soft drinks compani es
USA Market share, 2010 USA Market share, 2011
These pie charts show the market share of the top soft drink companies in the USA in 2010 and
I 2011. Both pies are divided into 6 segments, five soft drink companies and other.
In 2010 Coca-Cola Co. h as the biggest market share, 42% which increa sP l further with one
percent in the following year. Pepsi Co has the second biggest one with 2W},, and was able to
increase its market share by 2 percent, so in 2011 they had a market share of n %.
Together they have almost three quarters of the market, in both year s, wl,ile all the rest can
have only 29% in 2010, and an even smaller segment in 2011.
Dr Pepper Snapple has a relatively big segment in 2010 with 17%, but they los t two percent in
2011. Cott Corp's market share is the same, 5% in both years; Natura l Bever a ge could improve 1%
from 3% to 4%. Others have very little market share, 4% in 2010, which halved in 2011. ■ eoa-coueo ■ Pq,s,Co ■ Or ~pp,rr Sn.-pple
■ c:ou-coa.eo ■ P~ ■ Or~SNpple

■ Cott Corp ■ N•t ur•I bewr ~ e ■Ot her

■ Cott Corp ■ N&tur .al bew~a:e ■ Othtt"

As a conclusion, we can say that three big companies own more than 80% of the market' while
s maller companies have very little market share.

son drink ad(t6itol all lhe rest az6sszest6bbi

market share piaci riszuedh improve javul

1102
 /ii i)
Gra phs Des crip tion 'y °
Gra phs Des crip tion

·
Coc a-Co la stoc k pric es,
2012 JI
=:: : :~----~
J e 22 and July 10, 2012 . The hor·1.l0 nta1
w
This line grap h show s Coca -Col~ sto~
k price s betw een u~
s show s the price s m U t;4.
s d II s The price
o 9 Then for t as quite low
79
I
fell a little and botto med out ; d July
axis show s the dates , and the ve;t 1~ ·t reach ed its peak at 7~ on n bl
. Dur ing t~o days the
e nelCt two 1s1 - - - - - -7 ,c___ _ _
__J
n , - - - - - -7 ~ - - -_ __ __ __
Ih
on 22nd June , 75 dolla rs. Next ay enhi st two days it rema ined sta e.
price rose stead ily, up to 78 dolla rs, t I stabi li
days it went back to 78 dolla rs and for t e a fi t five days • and then the price
• e in the 1rs 1
Bed at I!! - -_J
II
. ---------
To sum it up, there was a signi fican t ns ~ 76 , - - - - -7 ~- - -- - -
---
-..-...._r- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"0
a quite high level.
Blob~
1s ,
stabili se
----
rtszviny - ----------
stock 74 , - - - - - - - -
------
73 t-------------------
Jul 5 Jul 6 Jul 9 Jul 10
Jun 25 Jun27 Jun 29 Jul 2

--
Jun 22

--------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- days

Mar ket shar es of ban ks in Hun gary

25.8
2010 and 2011. The
et shar e of bank s in Hun gary in
In this bar char t you can see the mark perc enta ge of their market
I horiz ontal axis show s a num ber of
bank
share . The two year s are mark ed with
s, the verti cal axis show s the
diffe rent colou rs. In 2010 OTP Ban
shar e, 9.7% .
k h od the bigg est share,
CIB Ba nk and Raiffesen
P's
...,
20
than one- third ofOT
25%. Erst e Bank had only a bit more 3%.
Buda pest Bank had only "'
Bank had just over and unde r 8%, while , was the biggest in ~
some of their mark et shar e. The decre :1 .. C: 15
In 2011 almo st all these bank s lost Ban k lost 0.7 ;-:, d 0.9 p er cent, CIB
the case of OTP Bank , almo st 7%. Erste
Bank and Raiff eisen .,~
e t , hare in 2011, 3%.
pest Bank could have the same mark
0..
Bank lost a bit more, 1.1%. Only Buda 10
m arke t, but it suffered
Bank is the dom inan t play er in this
As a conc lusio n, we can say that OTP
a grea t loss of its mark et share . 5

1088 uesztu lg
domin ant CWmindn.&
0 CIB Bank Budap est Bank
suffer el&enV<d Erste Bank
OTP Bank

1104
 Graphs Description
Graphs Description
~~~~~_ <e:>
_.=:....- -.,.

Bank branches in Hungary f//1

in Hungary. The horizontal axis shows t

This is a ba~ chart_

0
~:~::~:e
ber of bank branches hile the two colours indicate b he
actual number ofbra~:e;, ; 0 bank branches in Hungary ;nks
years, the v~rt1cal ruus t· e In 2009 there wer~ more t . d ~d it bottomed out at about 1 60/1s
2,000

::!i~~: 0
:;:;e~:~ :i:::i;vb~t steadil~. in !~:
1;:;~~/n~[:h~:ge
too much, *:tarted at about l ,S~~
2012 The number of savings coopers ive the number of bank branches. ere ~as a very slight
in 2009, which was about 20% Jess _than nee between the number of bank and savings ~ooperative .c
E
:;;
1,500
II
increase during t~ese years, so the d•~r:; and in 2012 there were fewer bank branches m Hungary :,
C
branches was gettmg smaller a nd sm ' 1,000

than savings cooperative outlets. d d and the number of savings cooperat·

k branches ecrease , . h 1ve
All in all, as the n~mber of b an th re was about twenty percent loss m t e number of outlets 500
outlets basically remained the same, e 11
in Hungary in the given period.
marad 0
remain
bankfwk 2009
bank branch
savings cooperative
takarikszouetkezd years
■ ban ks ■ savings cooperative

i'
--------------- -------- ------- ---
Advertising costs of two computer companies Advertising costs of two computer companies
1,200

This line graph shows two computer companies, and how much they spent on advertising during
1,000
the years. The horizontal axis shows the years, while the vertical axis indicates the prices in
million dollars. The two companies, Apple and Dell, are marked with different colours.
In 2006 the situation was very different at the two companies. Dell sper. t :'JOO million dollars on 800
~
advertising, while Apple had about the third, a little more than 300 millio,, Dell decreased costs .!!!
in the following year, just to increase them again to peak in 2008 at a b ,nt 950 million, but in 0
-0
600
the next two years spending fell dramatically to reach its lowest point a t '500 million in 2010. In C

comparison, Apple started to spend more and more on advertising. Then· " as a big leap between ~
2006 and 2007, when costs remained about the same for two years. They r e;ached 500 million only ·e 400
in 2009, but then spending inceased dramatically and in 2010 it reached its peak at 700 million.
. All in all, Dell spent less and less on advertising, while Apple spent mor e a nd more, and in 2010 200
1t spent more than Dell.

0
advert.ising costs rekldmk6ltsl g Jeep ugr6s
spend k6lt dramatically drdmoian

1106
 ~
Graphs Description ~
Graphs Description

t' in 2007? •
Where do companies adver ise ~1111
Coca-Cola PepsiCo I

. nies Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, advertisa~ I

b . ft drmk compa ' · h t th °"
e different
I
These pie charts show where two ig sod. 1 'd d into 6 segments wh1c represen
their products in 2007.
B0 th harts are 1v e
c 'th d'fferent
1 colours. I
types of media, and are marked wt . . C a-Cola spends 69% of their advertis•
. f, both companies, oc . fp . ing
Television is the most important or . h h •gher 75 percent, m case o eps1Co. Radi
budget on this type of media, while ~he rate ;s mucmo~ey g~es there, compared to the 8% of Coca~
1
is important for PepsiCo, 13% 0_fthei~ adve_r ~m~ Go/,0 in case of PepsiCo and only 1% in case of
II
I Cola There's a big difference m online disp ay· . e advertising· It's an important ..
· . ·
Coca-Cola. The d1ffe~ence 1s even
b'gger
1 in magazm
sean,,ent ,
b "'
fraction in PepsiCo. Newspapers are not v1s1ble in the
1n

the Coca-Cola advertisements'. but onl~ ~ t with 1% in Coca-Cola. Outdoor ads are mor ■ OutdootM'lfflllins
18
advertisement budget of PepsiCo, but ~t . pres:)~ segment in both companies. All in all, televisio:
MNfWIJUl)ff
■ Onhnt d~

important for Coca-Cola, too, aitho~gh it is a sm t means of advertising.

is the strongest; all the others are Just comp1emen ary

outdoor kultlri
advertise hirdet
complementary kieg/sz/16
budget k61Wgvetu

-------------------------------- -
Inland passenger transport
Inland passenger transport Inland passenger transport
EU-27, 2008 Hungary, 2008
These pie charts show inland passenger transport in the whole European Unic.,1 and in Hungary
I in 2008. Both charts are divided into three segments, cars, buses and railway. "'hich are marked
with different colours. Cars make up the biggest segment of both pies, but in th,, whole EU, 84%of
inland passenger transport is done by car. This number is only 62% in Hunga•·.,•. 22% Jess. Buses
are not so important in the EU; only 9% of passenger transport is done by buse, . compared to the
26% in Hungary, where this segment is three times as big.
The difference is not so big in the railway segment. 7% of all European Union and 12% of
Hungarian transport is done by railway, but it means that railway transport is still much more
important in Hungary.
To sum it up, we can see that although cars are the most important in both the EU and in
Hungary, buses and railways are also often used in Hungary.

inland bel~ldi although hobdr

pusenger u/a,

\ 108
 Graphs Description

• New Zealand?
Graphs Descr;ptio
_ . . . :._____ _:____~
n -=:c---..,
How much did different tourists spend m
How much did different tourists spend in New Zealand?
1111'
. te ry in million NZ dollars Th
This horizontal bar chart shows spending by tourism cad ~t ati'onal which are rn. ree
· • · d tic an in ern •
•u·
dollars· domestic t ark6~ I
segments of tourism were examined, business, omes
with different colours. In 2006 business travellers spent 1,625 mi tnthis yea~ domestic t our~sts
. ""
hit J ### i#i I
spent 5,788 dollars, while international visitors spent 4,664 dollars. n
spending was the highest.
ourism
I I I I
2008
In the foll~"".ing years there was growth m. d' fall tourists. Business tourists s
the_ spen i~g O million in
about 100 m1lhon dollars more every year, so their spending reached 2 •030 2009 J>ent
·
·
In the biggest category, domestic • ·
tourism, spend'mg grew bY about 200 million dollars II
. . . every
year, so by 2009 it reached 6,319 dollars. The spending of internati?nal v1S1_tors grew. very fast 2007
in the first year, but later this growth became slower, and by 2009 internationa l tourists SJ>ent
almost as much, 6,222 million dollars, as domestic tourists.

-- --
1,625 _ _ _ __
To sum it up, there was growth in the spending of all categories, but business tourism spending 2006
grew the most.

0 2,000 4,000

c__:~"! tourism
ltiJllh
b,J{illdi turizmu.
international
viaitor.1
klll/Mdi~
J
■ Business tourists
6,000 8,000
million NZ dollars
■ Domestic Tourists
10,000 12,000 14,000

■ International visitors
16,000

---------------------------------
~ Leisure travel in the EU

Leisure travel in the EU, Business travels in the EU,

These two pie charts show leisure and business travels in the European Union, in 2011, in 2011 (million trips) 2011 (million trips)
million travels. Both charts are divided into five segments, Germany, France, UK, Spain and
others, which are indicated by different colours. German travellers made the mn,;t leisure trips,
215 million, in 2011. France was a close second with 204 million trips, together t hey gave a bit
more than half of all leisure trips. Spain, with 122 million, and the UK, with 117 1•1illion were the
two small segments, but these four countries together gave more than three quart ,,rs of all leisure
trips, while the other 23 states of the EU gave about one fifth, with 142 millior. . In comparison,
business trips show a bit different picture, though the dominance of these four cou m.ries is evident.
The other 23 countries accounted for one third of the business travels, with 65 mi II ion ; Germany
a bit more than one quarter with 56 million, the UK was the third with 26 million, while France,
with 21 million, and Spain, with 17 million, were the two small segments.
• GtrfNl'IW ■ fr;tnCt ■ Ult ■ Si>,1111 ■Othefi
All in all, four countries dominated both leisure and business travels in the European Union in
2011.

Jeiaure rzabadU6 evident nyiludnva16_ _ J

- - --=
tra=vei._ _~ _ ulazda

1110
 ~
~ Graphs Description Graphs
_ f
Description
_..!.....:._::_ _ __:__ _ _=---..,,_

Mobile calls in Hungary

1/11

f mobile calls in Hungary and their length

. bo t the numberO
This line graph gives informat10n a u
in minutes. . . h ws the number of calls and the rninut
the vertical axis s o II d th . es
The horizontal axis shows the years, both the number of ca s _an e rnmutes wer'
001
which are marked with different colours. In ~ was about one min~te. Durmg the following fou:
at 4,000, that is, the average length of~ ::eadily to reach 6,000 m 2005. There was a bit faster
Years' the number of. calls rose slowly bu b' of calls was 8 000 in 2008, where it level( d
I growth in the followmg three years, an
dthenumer
.
'. .
the length of calls m mmutes grew slowly b t
out or showed a very little growth. ~n compariso;, t to reach 16,000 in 2008. In the last two ye u
e

steadily in the first four years, then it grew vty as the maximum was in 2010 at almost 18 ~~
the growing tendency continued, only more s owIY, so 0
' ·
. nd spoke for longer and longer.
In this period people used their mobile phones more, a

2,000 +-- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

---------------------------------
Why companies used the internet
Why companies used the internet
100
This bar chart shows why companies used the internet in three years, 2006, 2008, and 2010. 90
The horizontal axis shows the years, the vertical axis shows the percentage. The three main
80
reasons, getting information, emails and banking are marked with different colours.
70
In 2006, the main reason was getting information. Nearly all companies uswi the Internet for
that. Sending emails was also important, and 90% of the companies used that service. Banking .... 60

....
was used much less, as only about 50% of companies used the internet for that reason. Two years ~
C:
50
later there was a little decrease in the first two reasons, though they remained \'ery important, but ~
the use of banking rose significantly and reached 62%. This tendency continued in 2010, too, when C. 40
use of banking services reached 78%. Getting information decreased a little further, but emails 30
became more frequently used, so in 2010 emails were the most important service.
20
To sum it up, banking grew significantly, getting information decreased, and emails didn't
change too much. 10

r
2006 2008 2010
reason oh
banki .uolgdl• ij ■ Getting information
years
■ Emails ■ Banking

1112
 ~ t1_·o_n__~--"- '---
_G_r_a.:.._p_h_s_ D_e_s_c_r.....:ip ··~

Grap hs Desc ripti on

11111
d
Inte rnet user s in the worl Inte rn et u s e rs in the worl d Fac e book user s in the wor ld
I
by region, 20 12 I
ebook users in the -
world by re.,;
.,,on by regi on, 2012 I
and the F a C contm e~ts, which are
users t accor ding to the five
These two pie chart s show the Inter net
n, only one I
se~: :r~ are in Asia, 44.8~ - In comp ariso same rate
in 2012. Both pies are divide d into five t Euro pe and Amer ica has abou t the
Most In~er net .
indica ted by differ ent colou rs. betw een these
contm :n ·1 but there is a big differ ence
quart er of Faceb ook users come from this ive i;;;ok users come from Amer ica, and less than
of Inter net users , 21.5% and 21.8 perce nt re;p; ~
ver; 10.7% of 11
st a l ~ aceall segm ent on both chart s, howe
two conti nents in Faceb ook use. Almo h_ ook users . Aust ralia has 1% on
a quart er of them come fro°:' Europ e.onlyAfric ~;~; t : t, S%, of Faceb
from Afric a, and ha
Inter net users are ti M
d ""'"-
both chart s. Id th Inter net and theica Faceb ook 1uere n Y- ost Inter net
e f: Amer
As a summ ary, peopl e of the wor use ■ Ainu ■ Auttr3U.
are rom ·
users are from Asia, but most Faceb ook users
egyenk ent
respect ively
fe/ho8z n4/6

--------------- ------------------
H ow s mal l busi ness es a re fina nced
How smal l busi ness are finan ced ~

Person al
savings of
l
--
I I I
I I I
show s the
cing small busin esses . The horiz onta l axis owner s
This horiz ontal bar chart is about finan
perce ntage , the vertic al axis show s the types
of finan cing. The two colou rs indic ate startups, and
Person al ➔
wner s, 66%, and
all small busin esses. Start ups are main
ly finan ced by the perso nal savin gs of o cre d it cards ,

•
-

which is less than h al f , f the perce ntage of owner s

owne rs, 32%,
secon dly by the perso nal credi t cards of the loans from fr i,,nds and relati ves i
of perso nal savin gs. In third place come comm ercial loans , 23%,
re much more , ..
nmen t loans and grant s at 8 %. Loa ,•~ a C: •n mercia l
come in fourth at 12%, and finall y by gover for them come s main ly from _:1m merc ial loans , loans
cing
impo rtant for all small busin esses. Finan only 35%. The i
much less impo rtant than for start up ~ at
49%. Perso nal savin gs of the owne rs are L:>a ns from , ._

--
ories of smal l busi nesse s.
used by both categ
other types of finan cing are about equal ly busin esses
f,iends and
relativ es
1

nal savin gs of the owne rs. 35% of all small

So the bigge st differ ence is in the persops. Gover ment
66% of startu
use this, comp ared to the
loa ns and
grants -
kezd4 vdUalkozdaWI
---
grant
savings
ttlmoga uu, osz/4~
m egtakar l/48
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Jr61.ca61i. ■ Sta rtups

■ All small Businesses

1114
 <ilf'

Graphs Descrip tion f/11

Corpor ate dept US vs Europe

Corpora te dept
US vs Europe
I
. the USA versus Europe. The horizon us
10
th USA and different parts of Eur ta!
h the corporate debt
from the bond ma ore. I
This horizonta l bar chart shi~::he vertical axis sh~w~t O:tained directly r et
axis shows the percentag e, w ed front banks, and e
UK
The two types of debt, debt borrow
are marked with different colours. h me about 50% each; maybe debt borrow d
~ t~~o~:~ a::: is ~uite diffe~en~ Int ~;%UK debt borrow!d
11
In the USA these two types of tbt
ou "·
from the banks is a little more. In uro d bt front the bond market is a fu rozone
is about 72%, which means e . n higher at 85%, and debt from the b d
from banks ed f banks 1s eve b . b on
In Europe as a whole, debt borrow r~m . the Eurozone 90% of all de t IS arrowed frotn
'/'l
15 "· In compariso n, m
market is even lower at h b nd markets.
banks and only 10% is borrowed from t e o SA Europe
t th 50-50% of the U ·

7
compare d O
e
That is a big difference,
40% 60% 80% 100%
obtain surez
vdllalali Mtvinypiac
corporate
bond market ■ Borrowed from banks ■ Obtained d irectly from the bond marke t
a,l&s,lg
debt
k6lcs6 nuesz
borrow

---------- ---- -- -- ---- --- --- - --- -

(111 M=a-" '1 po,itio = held by w o = in the USA
'!
Manag erial positio ns held by women in the USA
22 .

T he horizonta l axis
This bar chart shows the rate of women in manageri al positions in the USA.
the two types of positions,
shows the years and the vertical axis indicates the percentag e, while
II board seats of big companie s and CEO positions held by women are marked
w il h different colours.

■
r a l •- increased for two
In 2001 big companie s had only about 12% women on the board. This
in 2005. Nothing changed in 2007, the,: ,.here was a slight

■
years to reach a little more than 14%
developm ent, and by 201116% of people in these positions were women.
■ ■
■ ■ ■
bu 1 ,~ grew higher and

••
The rate of women in CEO positions was about the same, 12% in 2001,
and 1.; e rate fell back to
faste~, and reached more than 16% in 2005. But then the trend turned,
13% m 2009. It started to grow again, but reached only 14% in 2011.
■ ■ ■
·• '·'!
:-
of big companie s, the
Althou~h there is a steady growth in the number of women on the boards
■ ■ ■ ■
•
1s not as clear as that in the number of CEO positions held by women.
tendency

I ■ ■ '
■ ■
■ / .~■ ■ ■
managerial position vez,/6 beoszJ4s board
CE O uez.irigaz.go.J6
.I ' I

• ti . t I t : t t .

I 116
•

i
Graphs Description Graphs Description
. gs
ali 2012, weeklY earnm Gender pay gap, Austral.
Gender pay gap, Austr a, ta, 2 Ol2, weekly earnings
. earnings between men and wome . i
h d"fferences 10 . n 1n
· thousand Australia I
. h . ntal bar chart shows t e . I t l ax1·s shows the earnmgs m

I
Th1s or1zo . Th horizon a M d worn n Technicians
Australia 2012 weekly earmngs. e . erent groups of workers. en an en are lllarked
dollars w°hile the vertical axis lists the d1ffiarn much more than women of the same group. The
with different colours. All groups ?f m:n:here men earn l,74~ dollars per ~eek, compared to the
biggest difference is among professional ' 1 The difference is almost as big as that between th
1375 dollars of women. This is 367 dollarTsh esst.wo groups are the best paid of all. In the less bett e
' Ii al
earnings of male and em e ma~
. h · ·
paid jobs, hke tee mcians
agers ese
· • about 300 dollars.
the difference 1s
en in Australia. The higher the pay is, the big
er Professionals
II
To sum it up, women earn much less than m ger
the difference.
Managers
professionals szellemi ---,
gendei-
nemi
foglalkoz.c1,~
pay gap
ruettsi ka!Dnbsi g

2 000

■ Women ■ Men

I -------- ------------ -------------

I
,a
I
Number of conferences and trade shows in Hungary Number of conferences and trade shows in Hungary

This bar chart shows the number of conferences and trade fairs in Hungary. The horizontal
axis shows the years and the vertical axis shows the number of the events. Co11 ·~• rences and trade.
shows are indicated with different colours. There were 531 conferences in 2 0 C· In the next year
531 537
the number of conferences dropped to 356, which was the lowest number duri1. · I he whole period.
In 2010 the number of conferences grew sharply, and went higher than the ' )08 number. The
growing tendency continued in 2011, when there were 602 conferences, which "" -:ms about twenty
percent growth on the previous year.
In comparison, the number of trade shows was very low, only 57 in 2008 . There was great
development in the next year, when the number grew by about 40% and reached its highest at 90.
Then the tendency turned and the number of trade shows decreased slowly but steadily to 70 in
2011.
200
. All in al!, the tendenc_ies in the number of trade shows and conferences are opposite; when there
1s growth m one, there 1s decline in the other. 100

c trade ■how szaUid/1/14■

=---......:
developroent _ _ _ _ _ _,(,jl&ll■
oppoe~ ellenllta :=:] 0 +-------

1118
 •
Gra phs Des crip ti~
t Inte rna tion al Fair
the Bud apes
Num ber of visit ors to I

mber of visito rs to t?et:B dape st Jnte rnati o~al Fair betw

verti cal
the year~ , while !re than anyt ime
axis indic ates
een 20
the nurn be 05
later. By the next rs of
120,0 00 I
This line grap h ~hows the -~ushows
and 2011 . The horiz ontal axi le visite d the Fa1r, muc ~
m tic fall. The decr ease cont inue d i Year,
..
visito rs. In 2005, 1 ~
2 0
? P:o1~oo people, whic h wa~ a
2
~~:~ here were
er pace, ~~• m Then the trend turn
fewe r than 60,0 00 vis ~:he
ed for a year and t~s. .....
a.
0
100,0 00
11
t
VJSI:~:~
0
it fell back by one-t h b at a ~uch slow drop and then a d eclin e so :; -0 80,00 0
to ~o.o~o there was a C
;~xt two y~a;~o~o~~wua sligh t rise,
nu:i,::~: visito rs reach ed 60,00 0. Buth1 i:ry
~ht1·se one third of the 2005 num
•
ber.
th"rd s of its visit ors m seve n year
s.
~
:,
0
60,00 0
0 00 0 visito rs' w JC . ~
2011 there were only 4 ,
. 1 Fa1r lost two 1
t
All in all, the Buda pest Inter ns iona 40,00 0

two-third
l,6nnik or 20,00 0
aeytim e
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
years

-- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- --
e fair s in G e rma ny, 2 008
How ma ny peo p le visi ted trad
fair s in Ger man y, 200 8
How man y peop le visit ed trad e
900 850
any in 2008 , by the type
of visito rs to trade fairs in Germ
This bar char t show s the num ber fairs , whil e the verti cal axis indic tes
s the types of trade
of trade fair. The horiz ontal axis show mos t pop ula,· in this y ear; 850 700
peop le. Moto r show s were the
the numb er of visito rs in thou sand s were in seco nd place , but with only 512 t hous and
puter expo
thou sand people visite d them . Com popu lar as comp uters, 600
inery expo s, whic h were almo st as "'
visito rs. Then came cons truct ion mach
"ii
quite popu la r. ,·, ith 340 and 300
with 500 thou sand visito rs. Agri cu lture
fairs and book fairs were
201 t h ou~ ,1d peop le, whic h
t" 500
s were the Jess visit ed, with only
thou sand visito rs, while heati ng show s.
'I:
;; 400
rs than those of the moto r show
is more than four times fewe r visito
All in all, trade fairs are popu lar in Germ any, but the most popu lar ones
are ,o tor show s.
~ 300

200
constr uction ipft4g ipek
motor show aul6ki6 llftd& 100
heat.in g frUi, machi nery
0 Computer Agriculture Construction
Motor show Books Heating Machinery
expo
type of trade fair

1120
 Gra phs D escr ip t io n ~ .)
Grap hs Desc riptio n Sha re of tota l
ener gy prod uctio n, 2009 11111
rodu ction , 2009 40% I
Shar e of total ener gy P I
. n in 2009 in three differ ent count r1e .
. h
roduct 10 the vertic'al axis h 8

about t h e s
hare of total energ
. shows the
y P
count
.
ries,
s ows t e percen t
age,
•
-i-----------
I
Th.is bar chart is 1
30%
ent types of energ y.
and the EU averag e. The ho:iz~ nta : :differ roduc tion; solid fuels are 20% and natura
l
while the differ ent colour s md1cate
gy l·s 28
% of all Europ ean coun
U · n
enertro :
rie
Ps have very differ
U
ent share s of these
h"l •
I Jess than the E avera ge, w I e in Hung
types f
ar
o
25%
II
N ucIear ener
• o/1 The differ ent Europ ean n10
;~::;/ ~~cl ear energ y pro_duction i~
most impor tant with 36%, m
o:~~
th
.
t;i~! J Kingd om it _is the least impo rtant,
most impo rtant m Germ any, 36% , Hung
only on:'.
ary Uses
20%

15%
it is the
e. Solid fuels are e Jess just 6%. Natur al gas is the most impor tant
third of the EU averag
only a third of it, and the Unite d Kmgd o7
ary uses on y
e:::uth.:o-t hird of it, while in Germ any it is the
less
10%
is the Unite d Kingd om. Hung
ction
t . se differ ent types of fuels in energ y produ .
impor tant, only 9%. ries u
To sum it up, we can say that the coun

/aldgdz
natural gas
n ildrd tiiul6an yagok I
solid fuels

----------------- ----------------
Thre atene d speci es

ntal
specie s in four count ries in 2 009. The horizo
This is a bar chart of the threat ened anima l nt of the specie s know n, while the three
ies, the vertic al axis shows the perce
axis shows the countr
ent colour s.
differ ent group of anima ls are marke d with differ
11% of birds and 8% of fish are threa tened . T he situat ion is only
In Canad a, 31% of mamm als, als and 10% of birds a rn threat ened, but
18% of the mamm
slight ly better in the USA, where only a. Fish are in a vc•-_y bad positi on in
r than in Canad 60%
the numb er of threat ened fish is much highe rate of threa tened m a m m a ls is also much
The
Germ any, as 69 percen t of them are threat ened. the ratio of threa tened !',rds is the larges t
previo us two countr ies, at 41%. Also 50%
highe r than in the in Hung ary, which is t ),. · highe st numb er
the mamm als are threat ened
in this countr y, 38%. 71% of
amon g these count ries, more than double of the numb er in Canad a. 40% - ! - - - - - - - - -- - - --
s (31%) in Hung ary than in Germ any. but this numb er
. There a'.e fewer th~eat ened fish specie applie s to threa tened bird specie s. The
The same
1s much_h1g~er t~an. m the USA or Canad a. worse than in the USA.
ny, but much
Hung arian s1tuat1on 1s better than in Germa
ls are threat ened in these count ries. The situat ion is the
Unf?r tunate ly a large part of all animaUSA d C d a . H ungar y 1s · the worst pos1t1
· m · · on a bout
worst m Germ any and very good in the an ana
'
mamm als.
h h tion.
All in all, the USA has the smalle st• and German y as t e larges t threa tened anim al p opula

- - • - -IN'NW D~ l peclN - 1-
• - l -et<tt {qjoli mammal& em/6sok

1122
~
V Graphs Description

CO2 emission
Graphs Description (e) J

CO2 e111ission
. . . three parts of the world. The horizontal axis
This bar chart shows the CO, emission_in. . billions of tons, the different colours • ~~0 'Ws
the years, the vertical axis s?ows the ~miss~;;7arge developing countries together. At :n 1ca1,e
Ill I
the USA, the 27 Europen Union co~ntr_iesd ae to the USA. In 2007 it was almost 6 biliio glance I
I
we can say that t~e highest e~usswn is ~ittle in
2011 . In comparison the 27 Europeann to~s.
It decreased to 5 in 2009, but inc_re_ased a f CO emission is 2007, which was two third Union
countries were responsible for 4 _billion tons O it de~reased to about 3.5, and remained at t: of the
I
·1
-I
volume of the :U~A. In the foll~wing two ~ears relativel low in 2007, only about half o e same
level. The em1ss1on of developing ~ountr1es w~s ·(grew significantly, and reach df t~at of
the USA, about 3 billion tons, but in the following years I e 4 b1ltion II
tons by 2011.
. . . d
To sum 1t up, em1ss10n ed
ecreas 1·n the EU countries, but increased in the developing countrtes
so it didn't change much on the whole.
.
'
■
II
CO, (carbon dioxide)
emission
developing counbies
uin-dic»rid
kiboadta,
feyl6d6 orwlgok
at a glance
responsible
rdnizhre
felel6s .I
2009 2011

■ LDC

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ --- . I •: ; I; . ; I ; ; I

i'

Import, export within the EU by enterprise size, 2010

Import within the EU Export within the EU
by enterprise size by enterprise size
These two pie charts show the imports and exports within the EU by enterprise size, that is (number of employees), 2010 (number of employees), 2010
number of employees. Both charts are divided into five segments according to the different size.
Small companies, with 0-9 employees import the most, 61%. The next segment, companies with
10-49 employees are the second, with 19%, medium size companies with 50 to 249 employees are
the third with 5%, while really big companies, with 250 or more employees import the least, only
2%. In addition, 13% of the imports are done by companies with unknown size.
Small companies are also the biggest segment on the exports chart, only the ~ate, at 52%, is 9%
lower. A bit bigger companies have a bigger share of exports than of imports. 23%, compared to
the 19% of imports. Medium-size companies have a 9% share, which is almost : wice as much as
the import share, big companies have the same volume, 2%, while the comparnes with unknown
size are responsible for 14%. ■ 0-9 ■ 10-'9 ■ S0-2'9
■ 0-9 ■ 10-49 ■ S0-249 ■ 2SO. ■ 1111known ■ 2!,0- ■ unlnowrn

All in all, the smallest companies are the biggest segment, both in imports and exports.

enterprise vdllalkozds employee alkalmazott

size mlre.t

\ 124
 Graphs Desc ription
.-
.
Polish immigration to Austria an
d the Nethe rland s
--- --- --- -- - - I-
Graph s Descr iption Ce)
.h
This line graph shows how m~y Pohs . peO le immigr
i; ated to Austri a and the Nethe
between 1998 and 2005. The horizontal axis
numbe r of immigrants.
s ows
the years while the vertical axis sh r1ands
' 0 ws
the
7,000
--- -- 1111

- I
6,000 _ _ _
In 1998 1 500 Polish people immigrated to the Netherlands.
In the ~ext year, this number fell
to 1,000, the~ rose to 1,500 in 2,000. It remained mor~or less th
grew dramatically to reach 4,800. The growing ten ency
con
;.::::
I
!!
112 3
2
d ~~ ;~en the number
a most 6,0oo "'ai
5,000
I
Polish people immigrated to the Netherlands. JJ 4,000 ·
E
:,
In comparison, 5,000 people went to Austria in 1998, more th 3 C
an times_as many as to the 3,000
Netherlands. The number remained stable for a year, th~n
it dr?pped to 3 ,3 oo m 2000 and levelled 11
out for anothe r year. Then in the next year it dropped t? its
all time lo~ at 3 ,000 peopl~. Then after 2,000
a slight increase it jumped to reach its peak at 7,000 m 2004.
Then it decrea sed a httle and was
about 6,800 in 2005. 1,000
Although there were different tendencies in immii:i:atio~ to
these two countrie~, 2003 seemed to
be a turning point. In that year a great many people 1mm1g 0
rated to both countr ies.
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
years
immigration b,vdndorld& turning point
:::J
forduJ,Jpon1 .... Netherlands .... Austria

--------------------------- ------
Inflat ion in some EU countries

This multiple line graph shows the change of inflation in

three EU countries. The horizontal
axis shows the years, with 2013 as a forecast, the vertica
l axis shows the per <'ntage, and the
different colours indicate the different countries. The country
with the lowest in r, c ,ion rate during
the whole period is Spain. In 2000 it was only two per cent.
In the next year it ·.vent higher and
reached its peak at 3 per cent, but in 2012 it went down again,
and the forecas t number for 2013
is very low, just a little more than 1 percent. In comparison,
the startin g point for Estonia was
higher, almost 3 percent in 2010, then it almost doubled in
the next year, but in 2012 it came down
to 4 percen t and further decline is forecas t; in 2013 inflatio
n will be only 3.5 percent, which is still
higher than in 2010. Hungary had the highest inflation rate
of these countr ies in 2010, almost 5
percent. The next year it dropped to 4 percent, only to rise
to the all time maximum, 5.5 per cent
in 2012. A decrease is estimated for 2013, so it will be less
than 4 percent, which is still very high.
All in all, Hunga ry had the highest inflation rate in this
period, and the tendencies are also
differe nt than in the two other countries.

L-- ---- -,-- --- - - - , --

____
io_D•_tion
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ill/llkw
__. ~-- -t.--__ rarecut _ _ _~-
el6rejelzh
O
2010 2011
years
-::2-=:
01:-=-2--.,.. --~2:0~13~(!;or
:::e,:as:t)~

◄- Estonia .+-Spain ...o,-Hungary

1126
 ~o rd s t o De scr ibe Gr a
1w)
p hs ~
)
hig h rnagas
inc rea se
ind icat e
novelled es Ill

I
m uta t
JeaP ugr as
Jea st leglleuesebb
Jevel out
s kiegyen lit(IJdik}
Words an d Ex pr es si on Joss vesz tese g

to De sc rib e G ra ph s JoW
ma rk
ala cso ny
Jelol
11
med ium kozepes
nea rly m a} dne m
00 the wh ole egeszeben

Gr af iko no k lei ra sa ho z
ha sz na lh at o sz av ak pac e ute m
pea k csu cs
percen tage szti.zalekos ara ny
von alg rofi kon
line gra ph rate arany
osz lop gra fiko n
bar cha rt reach eler
kor gro fiko n
pie cha rt rela tive ly visz ony lag
vfzs zint es ten gely
hor izon ta1 axis remain ma rad
fuggt5leges ten gel y
ver tica l a.xis rep res en t kep vise l
ave rage atla g
rise eme /ked ik, eme lked es
bot tom ou t eler i a min imu mo t
seg me nt sze gme ns, resz
com par ed to oss zeh aso nlft va
sha re resz ese des
comple men tary kie geszftt5
sign ific ant ly j elen tosen
con tinu e foly tat{6di k}
slig ht cse kely
decline cso kke n{es}
stag na t e sta gna l
dec rea se cso kke n{es }
stea dily egy enle tese n
differ ence kul onb seg
t urn meg for dul
divi de felo szt
tur nin g poi nt ford ulo pont
dou ble dup la, duplti.z
twi ce as mu ch kets zer ann yi
down ward lefele
dro p two t hir ds keth arm ad
visszae ses
equ ally upward felf ele
egy enltJen
f all varia ble valt ozo
esik
fall bac k where as am (g
visszae sik
fluc tua te ugr al, valt ozik
wo w noveksz ill
gro wth nov ekedes
hal ve
me gfelez

1128 1 12 9
~ Words to Describe Graphs
t he overall trend is variable
it shows a decrease/increase
it peaked
it bottomed out
there was a slight increase/decrease
grew/decreased slowly but steadily
the pace slowed down/quickened up
it increased/decreased further by one percent
for two days it remained stable
it stabilised at a high/low level
the increasing/decreasing tendency continued
nothlng changed in the following year
then the trend turned
it meant a dramatic fall
it dropped to its all-time low
it made a big leap to reach its peak
Ko rdiagramok leirasara hasznalhat6 kifejezesek
both pies are divided into ... segments
the biggest segment is ...
together they have almost three quarters ...
th ere's a big difference in ...
although it is a small segment in both ...
only a fraction
this segment is three times as big
according to the different size
I 130
Words to Describe Graphs ~
I
az tiltalanos trend ualtoz6 All in al l, I
I
csokkenest/nouekedest mutat M indent egybeveue ...
a legmagasahb pontjara emelkedett
There were ups and downs
'fo sum it up . . . ··· ~a/tow iranyu mozgas uolt I
Osszefoglalaskeppen
elerte a minimumot it was four times high er ...
kisse nouekedett/csokkent nigyszer mogasabb uolt ...
.
.. . there. wer e a Jot of ch anges m
Lassan, de egyenletesen nott/csokkent
this period ... sok utiltozas uolt ebben az id6szakban 11
... the biggest chanme ., s were
··· a legnagyobb ualtoztisok ... uoltak
az utem lassult/gyorsult As we can see . . . ···
AJwgy Mijuk .. .
touabb emelkedett/csokkent egy szazalekkal As a conclusion ...
Ossze(oglalua ...
ket napig ugyanugy maradt .. . is the dominan t player ...
·· • a dominans szerep/6 ...
magas/alacsony szinten allt meg .
. . . is the stronges t/mos t importan t
" . a legerosebb!leg(ontosabb
a noueku6/csokken6 tendencia folytat6dott in this period ...
ebben az id6szakban
a kouetkez6 euben semmi sem ualtozott the biggest difference is
a legnagyobb ku/.onbseg ...
aztan megfordult a trend That's a big difference, compared to
Ez TUigy ku/.onbseg ....hez kepest.
ami dromai uisszaesest jelentett the tendency is (not) clear .. ·
a tendencia (nem) uilagos
•
a mindenkori legalacsonyabb ertekre esett UIS&za
the higher ... , the bigger .. . minel magasabb ..., annal TUigyobb ...
egy nagy ugrassal elerte a maximumot lost/gained two third of .. . eluesztette/megszerezte a ... ketharm.adJit
the most popular ones are ... a legnepszerubbek a ...
.
Although there were different tend enc1es Habtir a tendencitik nem uoltak egyformtik ...
mindket korgrafikon ... reszre uan osztua
a legnagyobb resz ...
egyutt majdnem luiromnegyedet adnak ...
TUICY ku/.onbseg uan ...
habar mindkettonel kis resz
csak toredeke
ez a resz luiromszor akkora
a ku/.onbo?ii meretek szerint
\ 131