The chart illustrates the number of people from history museums, British museums, national museums and science museums who visited different museums in London.
The given bar chart compares data on the number of people who visited four different London museums, namely the History Museum, the British Museum, the National Museum, and the Science Museum, from June to December. Overall, in August, all museums except the Science Museum, whose peak time was in September, had the highest visitors; additionally, the number of visitors to the History Museum, the National Museum, and the Science Museum, in contrast to the British Museum, decreased over a four-month period.
According to the diagram, in June, the Science Museum sold the highest number of tickets, scoring nearly 420,000. Then, its visitor number dipped marginally to 400,000 between July and August but rose to the maximum mark at 500,000 in September, yet it fell moderately to 300,000 in December.
Meanwhile, both the British Museum and the History Museum recorded almost 410,000 in June; then, the number of their visitors approximately remained constant until July. However, they grew sharply and peaked at just over 700,000 and 600,000 in August but decreased considerably to nearly 475,000 and 250,000 in December. Similarly, the National Museum reported just over 200,000 in June; thereafter, the number of people who visited that place declined to just under 200,000 in July. Nevertheless, they increased significantly to almost 380,000 in August but dropped enormously to approximately 190,000 in December.
The pie charts below show the comparison of different kinds of energy production in a country in two years
Topic
The pie charts below show the comparison of different kinds of energy production in a country in two years.
Writing
The pie charts compare the proportions of different sources of energy production in a country in 1995 and 2005. Overall, there was little change in the production of energy from two types of sources, while the others experienced some changes.
In 1995, almost 29% of energy was produced from coal and gas, but in 2005 this rose to about 30%, showing a stable trend. In contrast, the proportion of energy produced from petro dropped significantly from around 29% in 1995 to approximately 19% in 2005, representing a decrease of about 10%. On the other hand, the proportion of energy produced from nuclear increased from approximately 6% in 1995 to about 10% in 2005, showing a notable rise. In addition, the share of energy from other sources rose from 4.90% in 1995 to 9.10% in 2005, indicating a significant increase. It is clear that while traditional energy sources such as coal, gas, and petro remained dominant, there was a gradual shift towards alternative sources, particularly nuclear and other sources, in these two years.
▪️The tables below give information about sales of Fairtrade*-labelled tea and pineapples in 2010 and 2015 in five European countries.
The table charts compare how many teas were sold to the figure for sales of pineapples from 2010 to 2015 in five European nations.
As can be clearly seen from the table charts, the figure for sales of tea and pineapples has increased in five nations; in addition, tea and pineapples have mostly been sold in France and Australia since 2010.
What stands out from the table chart is the decline of pineapple sales in Germany, which was 3 million euros in 2010. Then, the figure for selling pineapples in Australia stood at 16 million euros. By 2015, the figure for selling pineapples in Germany had dropped to just under 2 million of euros. By contrast, the number of pineapple sales had rocketed up to 48 million euro in Australia. Another interesting thing from the tables is that the figure for selling pineapples in France and the Netherlands has moderately climbed, although that of selling pineapples in Norway has negligibly dwindled since 2010.
As regards the figure for sales of tea, it has risen since 2010. To start off, the amount of money made by selling tea grew up considerably from 2.5 million euros to 21 million euros over five years. Another important factor from the table is that the figure for sales of tea had a slight rise in Germany and Australia to 3 and 8 million euros from 2010 to 2015. Finally, the amount of money made by selling tea had slightly gone up in the Netherlands and Norway by 2015.
▪️The tables below give information about sales of Fairtrade*-labelled tea and pineapples in 2010 and 2015 in five European countries.
The table presents infromation about pineapple and tea in five European countries in 2010 and 2015.
Upon examing the chart,it is evident that France not only had the highest cost of tea in 2015 but also saw the greatest rise in the cost of that drink over the five-year period. Austria's pineapple was the most expensive commodity among all countries in both 2010 and 2015.
According to the tea price data, Austria had the highest price among all countries, reaching 4 million euros. However, France's tea was not only the most expensive in 2015 but also experienced a considerable price increase over the five-year period. Reaching 21 million euros, the value of tea in France in 2015 was almost 7 times higher than in 2010.
According to the pineapple price data, Austria not only had the most valuable commodity but also recorded the sharpest rise. Austria's pineapple price increased sharply from 16 million euros in 2010 to 48 million euros in 2015. Austria's pineapple cost eight times more than that commodity in France, with the difference increasing further in 2015.
▪️The tables below give information about sales of Fairtrade*-labelled tea and pineapples in 2010 and 2015 in five European countries.
The two tables reveal some data about sales of tea and pineapples with Fairtrade-Labelled in 2010 and 2015 in five countries, including France, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and Norway.
Overall, in 2015, France recorded the highest sales of tea, while in 2010, Norway had the lowest sales. Additionally, in 2015, Austria achieved the highest sales of pineapples, whereas the Netherlands in 2010 recorded the lowest sales of pineapples.
In 2010, tea sales in Austria stood at 4 million euros, whereas the sales in other countries, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Norway were lower at 2.8, 2.5, 2, 1.8 million euros respectively. In 2015, the sales of tea in France increased markedly to 21 million euros, while the proportion of Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and Norway rose minimally to 8, 3, 2.7, and 2 million euros, respectively.
Regarding pineapples, in 2010, the sales in Austria was 16 million euros; however, sales in other countries, Germany, Norway, France, and the Netherlands were lower at 3, 2.8, 2, 1.6 million euros respectively. In 2015, the pineapple sales in Austria, France, and the Netherlands grew gradually to 48, 6.5, and 5 million euros, respectively; conversely, the sales in Norway and Germany declined moderately to 2 and 1.9 million euros, respectively.
▪️The tables below give information about sales of Fairtrade*-labelled tea and pineapples in 2010 and 2015 in five European countries.
The presented charts illustrate data about sales of Fairtrade-labeled tea and pineapples in 2010 and 2015 in five European countries.
Overall, a glance at the graphs reveals that the most prominent trend belonged to pineapples in Austria in the second year, while the lowest one was for tea in Norway in the first year.
France had a sale of 2.5 million euros in tea in 2010, whereas it soared to 21 million euros in 2015. The amount of sales in Austria was at €4 million in 2010, and then it reached €8 million in 2015. Germany sold tea at 2.8, but it went up marginally to €3 million in 2015. The Netherlands had a sale of 2 million euros, and it had a climb to 2.7 in 2015. Following this, Norway sold tea at 1.8 million euros, and during 2015, it rose slightly to €2 million.
Turning to the second table, the figure of sales of pineapples in Austria, France, the Netherlands, Norway, and Germany was at 16, 2, 1.6, 2.8, and 3 million euros in 2010. In contrast, they reached 48, 6.5, 5, 2, and 1.9 million euros, respectively, in 2015.
Some people believe that it is more important to spend public money on promoting healthy lifestyles to prevent illness rather than on treating people who are already ill.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is widely argued that public funds should be spent on encouraging people to adopt healthy lifestyles in order to reduce disease rates, as this is more beneficial than solely curing individuals who are already sick. I partly agree with this statement and will explain my reasons below.
There are various advantages to enhancement of public health. Firstly, preventing diseases is considerably more cost-effective, since treatments often require state-of-the-art equipment and the latest medical technologies, which can place a heavy financial burden on a country. Secondly, having a healthier population reduces the strain on the medical workforce and healthcare system. Finally, when fewer people suffer from illnesses, national productivity tends to be higher. Hence, this will enable citizens to contribute to their community, which benefits the whole country in the long run.
However, it is undeniable that there will always be people diagnosed with chronic diseases due to genetic factors or unavoidable conditions. Chronic conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity require proper medical treatment, otherwise these untreated conditions could lead to significant social and economic consequences. Moreover, if treatment is neglected, it may create feelings of inequality and dissatisfaction among the population. In addition, this will cause erosion of public trust in authorities, which will inevitably damage the national unity. Thus, it is vital for governments to invest in improving healthcare infrastructure to provide high-quality hospitals and medical services for those who are already ill.
In conclusion, while enhancing public health offers numerous benefits, adequate healthcare facilities must also be provided for the sick.
In many countries, people are living longer than ever before. Some believe that this is beneficial for society, while others think it creates more problems than advantages.
In the current climate, longer life expectancy has become a contentious issue. While some argue that elderly people can be advantageous to society, others, including myself, contend that senior citizens pose problems that outweigh advantages.
On the one hand, the existence of older individuals in a community may have numerous benefits. These people usually have extensive experience that they have gained during their lives. This experience and knowledge can be significantly helpful for the younger generation, imparting valuable lessons to them. For instance, in various fields, such as medicine or engineering, those who have more work experience can guide others with fewer skills. Similarly, senior citizens in a community are able to impart their knowledge to younger adults in different aspects of life.
On the other hand, the older generation might create several challenges. Firstly, these society members usually make huge demands on communities, more specifically in terms of health care. As community members age, they will probably develop different diseases, leading to a considerable drain on hospital staff and financial resources. According to a global research project conducted on various age groups at the University of California, citizens older than 70 account for more than two-thirds of sick people in hospitals. Furthermore, the elderly may take part-time jobs due to their reduced physical energy. This can negatively affect economic growth, since these job positions could be taken by the younger generation full-time and, at the same time, with more power.
In conclusion, although some people maintain that longer life expectancy can offer some benefits, I believe these advantages pale in comparison to its problems, including but not limited to placing a burden on hospital workers.
The chart illustrates the number of people from history museums, British museums, national museums and science museums who visited different museums in London.
The given bar chart provides a comparison of the number of individuals who visited various museums, including the History Museum, the British Museum, the National Museum, and the Science Museum, all located in London, over four different months of the year.
Overall, it can be observed that August has the highest proportion of visitors; however, December experienced the lowest figures for them.
According to the History Museum, there is a substantial share in visiting ( merely 600000), followed by June ( over 400000). In comparison with the former, December is smaller by a staggering 330000. The latter is larger than July and September (100000, 200000, and respectively).
Regarding the British Museum, August has the most significant population, who visit this place (over 700000), followed by September (under 600000 ). In contrast to the former, both June and July are equal, which are smaller by a staggering approximately 300000. Furthermore, December is about 23/29 as small as the latter.
Concerning the National Museum, both July and December have the same number of visitors ( under 200000 ), followed by September ( exactly 200000). June is larger than the latter (about 25000 ). In contrast to the former, September is larger by a staggering 5000. June is larger than the former.
About the Science Museum, December accounts for the lowest visitors ( exactly 3000000), followed by July and August, which have the same share (only 400000). In contrast to the former, September is larger by a staggering 30000. Eventually, in comparison with the latter, June is larger by a narrow margin.
The chart illustrates the number of people from history museums, British museums, national museums and science museums who visited different museums in London.
The bar chart compares four London museums regarding their number of visitors over five different months (June, July, August, September, and December).
It is clear that the National Museum had the fewest number of visitors, while the British Museum got the highest visits over the period shown. August was by far the most crowded month, especially for the History museum.
The number of visitors in June and July remained relatively stable. The History, British, and Science Museums each hosted almost 400000 visitors, which was twice as many in relative terms as the National Museum. In August, visitor figures for the three museums (the History, British, and National Museums) rose dramatically to peaks of 600, 700, and 400 thousands visitors, respectively, but visits to the Science Museum remained steady.
During September and December, the number of visitors to the History and British Museums dropped significantly to end up at 450000 and 350000, respectively. National Museums also saw a decline in visits in September, with only 200000 visitors, and remained at this level until the end of the period. By contrast, visits to the Science Museum rose to 500000 as the second most popular museum in September, before falling to 300000 visits in December.