The bar graphs compare the proportion of employed/ employment rates among Australian

men and women in three different age cohorts in 1984, 2001, and 2014.

Overall, the employment rate for men aged 35 to 44 remained unchanged compared to a slight
dip and a steady increase observed in the 15-19 and 60-64 age groups, respectively.
Employment rates grew for women except for the 15-19 age brackets, whose rate remained the
same. The 35-to-44-year-olds were the most employed demographics during the period shown
for both genders and employment rates were proportionally higher among men across most
categories.

As for men, the 35-44 brackets had the highest employment rates throughout, at 80%, while the
60-64 age group showed a marginal rise from 40% in 1984 to roughly 42% in 2001, and a
subsequent moderate climb to north of 60% to become the second most employed age group in
the end. By contrast, the employment rate among the 15-19 group, albeit the second highest at
the beginning, decreased by 10%, from just over 60% to approximately 52% in 2014.
As for women, the 15-19 and 60-64 were the two most employed cohorts, with the former’s rate
remaining constant throughout, at 60% and that of the latter rising from shy of 60% to 80%
between 1984 and 2014. Finally, the employment rate was consistently the lowest among the
elderly, doubling to 20% in 2001, and about 40% in 2014.

Better long than unclear

Figures do not change - figures can only stand

Do not try to paraphrase too hard

Drop = significant decrease

Some people believe that the government should spend more money putting in more
works of art like paintings and statues in cities to make them better places to live in.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Government spending money => financial burden

Antique arts => X

Counter => marginal

BOdy 2 => revitalize urban area => run-down areas => places for citizens to socialize => sense
of community / social cohesion + public safety

It is proposed that the government should allocate additional funding to exhibiting artworks such
as paintings and sculptures in public urban spaces. In my opinion, the maintenance costs fail to
undermine the improved social cohesion and reduced criminal activities that result from
displaying public art.

Good fail to justify bad

Bad fail to undermine good
Good/bad are not enough to overshadow bad/good

Those who decry such budgetary allocation often point to the high upkeep costs. Artworks,
when being displayed outdoors, can deteriorate rapidly due to the high exposure to sunlight,
and moisture which can accelerate their natural aging process to a greater extent. Therefore, in
addition to the initial installation costs, the government has to budget future annual restoration
costs, sophisticated surveillance cameras and security guards to deter vandalism, all of which
can needlessly divert the federal grants away from other state priorities. However, this
contention is flawed / questionable as the expenses are relatively marginal compared to
investments in other sectors such as healthcare, education and military.

I believe public art is a worthwhile investment due to its impact on social capital and public
safety. Aesthetic artworks can revitalize dystopian and neglected urban areas, transforming
them into more inviting and vibrant forums for civic discourse and social interaction. Not only
would bringing more people to parks and squares facilitate a greater sense of community, but it
could make these places safer by deterring wrongdoers who would have to be more careful
about when and where they can conduct illegal activities, realizing that their actions might come
under increased public scrutiny.

In conclusion, the benefits, such as the revitalization of empty spaces, increased social
cohesiveness and reduced criminal activity fully justify the expensive upkeep costs. In my
opinion, these investments could revitalize the art sector, making it a valuable asset for the
country.

Some people believe that the government should spend more money putting in more
works of art like paintings and statues in cities to make them better places to live in.

To what extent do you agree or disagree? =>

Should invest in public art => investing in public art is good

Should not => investing is not good

Despite legitimate concerns regarding the high upkeep costs associated with….., i
largely/mostly believe that / believe with few reservations that it is overall
beneficial

X is the only solution => X is not the only solution => there are other solutions

X is the best solution => X is not the best solution => there are BETTER solutions

Could => could not => solutions

Better => on a common ground

A > B => A is ineffective >< B is / A is bad >< B is good / A has more drawbacks / B has
more upside…
Society > individuals / long term > short term