Thắng:

The given bar graph compares the proportion of inhabitants born in

Australia and those born outside Australia living in 3 specific areas
over the course of 15 years, commencing in 1995.
Overall, the number of city dwellers born in both Australia and out of
this country accounted for the highest percentage over the period
shown.
Looking at people born in Australia , in 1995, the ratio of citizens
living in the cities made up started at 50% of the population, followed
by rural areas and towns with at 30% and 20% respectively . In the
next 15 years , there was a substantial increase by 20% in the total
residents living in the cities. Bucking this trend/ Conversely , the figure
for rural areas and towns both dwindled to approximately 2018% at
the end of the period.
Regarding those not born outside in Australia ,Australia, the rate of
city dwellers led the way/ ranked first with 60% in 1995 before rising
slightly to 80% in 2010, consolidating its leading position . On the
contrary , the data for/ number of statistics of rural areas experienced
a significant downward trend from 40% in 1995 to only lower than
10% in 2010. Meanwhile, the figure for people who resided in towns
remained static at nearly 1016% over the period.

Khanh:
The bar chart gives the information about the figures for
people who lived in urban, rural and town over the period of
15 years for, in terms of those born in and outside Australia.
and those born outside Australia.
Overall, it is clear from the bar chart that people preferred to
live in cities rather than the other two areas/ living in cities was
the most common for both Australian-born and non-Australian-
born citizens living in a city was more common for people
between 1995 and 2010. Meanwhile, it hasthere is a
remarkable decrease in the number of residents who lived in
towns and rural areas.

In 1995, around 50% of people born in Australia lived in

cities, followed by the number of. However, Australia-born
citizens who lived in towns and rural areas with accounted for
20% and 30%, respectively. By 2010, the number of those
living in cities had increased to approximately/ nearly 65%,
while the percentage of those living in towns and rural areas
dropped to a little over 15% equally/ alikeeach.

Tam:
The chart gives information about the percentage of people
living in towns, cities and rural areas in Australia between
1995 and 2010, in terms of people born in Australia and those
born elsewhere.

Overall, the percentage of people who lived in cities was the

highest most popular for both groups of people in both 1995
and 2010. Over the given/ surveyed a period, the number of
both Autralian-born and non-Australian-born living in cities
experienced a significant increase. the percentages of both
groups lived in cities increased.

In 1995, the percentage of Australian-born citizens who lived

in a city cities accounted for was around 50%. Besides that,
20% of people born in Australia lived in towns and around
30% lived in rural areas. By 2010, the percentage of people
who lived/ living in cities had increased to approximately/
nearly 65%. Meanwhile, the share of people who lived in
towns and rural areas has equally reduced to about 15%
each.

On the other hand, the proportion of foreign-born residents/

citizens who lived in cities was as high as 60% in 1995 and
increased by to 20% in 2010 to around 80%. However, non-
Australian-born citizens living ed in rural areas and towns in
1995 made up for around 40% and 10% respectively, but this
number had then dropped significantly in 2010 to around 5%
and 10% in 2010 . and in towns it dropped to around 10%.

Thinh:

The bar chart gives information about the proportion of

Australian-born and non-Australian-born people who lived in
cities, towns and rural areas over the course of 60 15 years,
starting from 19501995.
Overall, it is clear that the percentage of people living in cities
was the most commonhighest for both groups of people from
1950 1995 to 2010. Furthermore, meanwhile the rate for both
groups living in urban areas witnessed a significant increase, that
number of those residing in towns and rural areas saw a
downward trend. the percentages of both groups living in urban
and rural areas decreased during the period.
In terms of the percentage of people born in Australia,. The city
cities were as the highestmost popular choice of residence,
accounting for half of the population people in 19501995.
Meanwhile, 20% is the proportion of people living in urban
areas, compared to about 30% living in rural areas. By 2010, the
ratio of people living in cities had increased significantly to
about 65%, while the proportion of people living in towns and
rural areas decreased slightly to just under 20%. respectively.
On the other hand, the proportion of people born outside
Australia living in cities was most commonthe highest at around
60% in 1950, followed by. Tthe percentage of people living in
rural areas with was around 40%. Notably, the ratio of non-
AstralianAustralian-born people living in urban areas was only
one-sixth, compared with the city during the period.
HoweverHowere, the figure for the urban population increased
significantly by about 20% in 2010. In contrast, the figure
fornumber of people residing in/ settling down in rural areas
declined rapidly to approximately 10%. Similarly, the proportion
of people born outside Australia decreased slightly by nearly
5%.

Van Anh:
The bar chart gives information about the changes in the
population of Australian-born and non-Australian born people
residing in cities, towns and urban areas from 1995 to 2010.
Overall, the proportion of people born both inside and outside
Australia living in cities both inside and outside Australia was
the highest and increased steadily over the 15-five year periods
from 1995 to 2010. Meanwhile, the proportion of people living
in towns and rural areas of both within and outside
Australiagroups plummeted
In 1995, the proportion of Australian-born and foreign-born
people born in Australia and not born in Australia living in the
city accounted for about 50% and 60%. However, only 20% of
people born in Australia lived in towns, which drops towhile
only 15% of the foreign population lived in the same area. for
people not born in Australia. In rural areas, people born in
Australia made up for live around 30% and foreign-born citizens
occupied have increased to approximately 40%.
By 2010, the proportion of Australian-born citizens living in
cities had increased to around 65%, while the proportion of
people living in towns and rural areas had dropped to more than
15% equally.
Huong:
The bar chart gives information about the percentage of
Australian citizens that were born in and outside of Australia
living in urban, rural areas, and towns in 2 years 1995 and 2010.
Overall, the number of people residing in cities both inside
and outside of Australia was the highest and increased gradually
from 1995 to 2010. In contrast, the figure for residents in towns
and rural areas of both groups decreased significantly.
In relation to people born in Australia, in 1995, around 50%
of the inhabitants lived in a citycities . Meanwhile, other
Australian-born people who lived in towns and rural areas
accounted for around 20% and rural areas around 30%
respectively. In 2010, the figure for city dwellers in Australia
increased to 65%. In contrast, the proportion of the population
living in towns and rural areas decreased rapidly, both to about
15%.
For those who were born outside of Australia, 60% of the
population lived in cities, followed by 40% in rural areas and
10% in towns, in 1995. By 2010, the percentage of the urban
population increased rapidly by about 80%, while the number of
people living in towns and rural areas both fell below 10%.
TASK 2:
Thang:
Wealthy nations frequently provide financial assistance to
impoverished countries . Many people think it is better to give
support/ assist poor countries with a more practical
approachthing. From my perspective, I partly advocate with the
aforementioned statements because money is not the most
pivotal thing aspect/ element influencing human lives.
On the one hand, financial aid can sometimes be remarkably
very useful for the inhabitants in poor countries. When people
can not finance their lives , they tend to be depraved.
Therefore , the crime rate may increase substantially; hence, the
government has to expend a great deal of money to address this
problem. This may be prevented if people have enough money to
pay for their primary standard of living. Moreover , receiving
financial support also brings out a good chance to enhance the
infrastructures such as traffic systems , hospitals , schools,..
which will raise the living standards of the citizens in poor
countries.
Nonetheless, as previously mentioned, financial aid is not the
decisive element to solve poverty. Many government officials
misuse it to use for their own sakes, this partly explains why
citizens often only receive a small amount of money .
Therefore , developed countries should help developing
countries a more practical thing. They should invest money in
specific fields , typical is education. Sending more teachers and
experts ,building more educational institutions and providing
more resources like books and school supplies may help the
inhabitants a lot. Many people are not able to read and write, and
live in an environment without education; hence, they have to
work in extreme conditions, dangerous jobs with low wages in
order to pay for their daily expenses . Thus , investing in
education may give people the opportunities to go to school, find
a well-paid job , and improve their living standards.
In conclusion, although financial can sometimes be a useful
implement to support the poor impoverished countries, I hold the
view that developed countries should help a more practical thing
to help the inhabitants improve the standard of living.

Van Anh:
Although poor countries often receive money from developed
countries, this mode means of assistance does not help poor
countries reduce poverty substantially/ comprehensively . While,
some believe it they should be supported/ assisted by more
practical methodswith a more practical approach. I partly agree
with this opinion.
Huong
For many years, developed countries have been providing
financial support to less fortunate countries, but that has not
completely/ entirely solved the problem of poverty in those
countries. Some people think that this help should be replaced by
other more effective forms of help assistance/ aid and I partly
agree with this opinion.

Lan:
Around the world, poor countries receive a lot ofa great deal of/
generous financial aid from wealthy countries. However, some
people think that it is more practical to provide both material and
life-upgrading support. I agree with this opinion.
Money helps to improve the material aspect life of the poorer
countries, specifically the building/ construction of
infrastructures. However, in some casesBut in the other
situation, all the moneymonetary support cannot/ fail to did not
reach the recipients/ the needy/ recipient countries. this has
become is a common problem, also known as corruption in
some countries around the world and which their leaders find it
difficult to address such issue. don't have a way to completely
stop this problem. It's a problem of corruption. therefore, Giving
money to poor countries don’t helpfail to address the root causes
of poverty. That is understanding, education awareness, access
to the world and most importantly human health.

Thinh:
The provision of Affluent states often provide financial
support from affluent countries to less fortunate countries has
become increasing common/ popular for many years, but it does
not solve/ the address the problem/ issue of poverty. Therefore,
some argue that wealthy nations should provide a more practical
form of assistance. I completely agree with this perspective.

Khanh
In many parts of the world, poor countries often receive financial
aid from richer nations to improve their living standards for the
residents, however it there is not a comprehensive solution to
solve the root causes of poverty. Therefore, wealthy rich
countries should come up with alternative means of support and
I agree with this opinion.
Tam:
Over the decades, poverty has remained a pressing issue that
needs attention around the world. Some wealthy countries have
provided give less fortunate nations with generous financial aid
to less fortunate nations but still fail to overcome poverty. The
debate rages over whether financial aid really makes poor
countries better off.? In my opinion, I agree with the provide
provision of money as it because money is still the fastest
method/ tool thing to help countries get better, but i think finance
is not a comprehensive solution, thus and need to wealthier
countries should provide other forms of support other aid to
underpin the future development of poor countries.
Finance is very important in the eradication of poverty in each
country. To develop the country, it is necessary to have enough
funds in the process of operation to achieve efficiency. Financial
aid not only improves the economy of that country but also
enhances and improves the quality of life of the people. Through
the works: construction of new architectural works, development
of infrastructure, upgrading transport system, exchange of
education, technology transfer,..., there has been marked
progress thanks to the support enormous monetary support of the
rich countries donor. The financial support can be seen as a
significant improvement and has been recognized, but the
solution is limited to a superficial level.