Writing: Model

The pie chart below shows the main reasons why agricultural land be- comes less productive. The table shows how these causes affected three regions of the world during the 1980s.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main fea- tures, and make comparisons where relevant.



The chart illustrates the amount of land which has been degraded globally by different means. The table highlights the quantity of land degraded in three regions as a result of these means in the 1980s.

Overall, what is clear from the data is that the largest contributor to land degradation worldwide is over-grazing. Moreover, Europe’s land experienced the greatest proportional degradation during the decade studied.

Focusing on the causes, over-grazing accounts for 35%, which is 5% more than deforestation and 7% more than over-cultivation. The remaining 7% of degraded land is due to other unidentified causes.

Turning to land degradation by region, the least affected area was North America, with only 5% of its land degraded, chiefly as a result of over-cultiva- tion, which contributed to 3.3%. In contrast, nearly a quarter of European land was degraded, with deforestation making up almost a tenth of the total. Final- ly, Oceania’s land degradation stood at 13%, a figure almost entirely com- posed of over-grazing, whereas over-cultivation played no part

The three pie charts below show the changes in annual spending by a particular UK school in 1982, 1992 and 2002.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main fea- tures, and make comparisons where relevant.



The pie charts demonstrate how the expenditure of a school in the UK changed across 1982, 1992 and 2002.

Overall, it is clear that, in each of the years, the category which received more funding than any other was teachers’ salaries, whereas the smallest amount of money went toward insurance.

From 1982 to 1992, while spending on teachers’ salaries grew by 10% to ac- count for half of all spending, the financing of other workers’ salaries fell from 28% to 22%. 30% of the budget in 1982 was divided equally between re- sources and furniture and equipment, but the former’s share increased by 5% in 1992, whereas the latter’s dropped by 10%. The increase of insurance spending was negligible, rising from 2% to 3%.

Between 1992 and 2002, only insurance and furniture and equipment saw their budget share increase, by 5% and 18% respectively. Whereas the allo- cation of spending roughly halved for resources, the salaries for other work- ers dropped to 15% and for teachers to 45%.