In this example, there are four pie charts that you have to compare, which makes it quite difficult. So you need to decide the best way to structure your answer to make it easy to read and follow.
4 Pie Charts – Task 1 Sample
| You should spend about 20 minutes on this task. The pie charts show the electricity generated in Germany and France from all sources and renewables in the year 2009. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant. Write at least 150 words. |
Model Answer
The four pie charts compare the electricity generated between Germany and France during 2009, and it is measured in billions kWh. Overall, it can be seen that conventional thermal was the main source of electricity in Germany, whereas nuclear was the main source in France.
The bulk of electricity in Germany, whose total output was 560 billion kWh, came from conventional thermal, at 59.6%. In France, the total output was lower, at 510 billion kWh, and in contrast to Germany, conventional thermal accounted for just 10.3%, with most electricity coming from nuclear power (76%). In Germany, the proportion of nuclear power generated electricity was only one-fifth of the total.
Moving on to renewables, this accounted for quite similar proportions for both countries, ranging from around 14% to 17% of the total electricity generated. In detail, in Germany, most of the renewables consisted of wind and biomass, totaling around 75%, which was far higher than for hydroelectric (17.7%) and solar (6.1%). The situation was very different in France, where hydroelectric made up 80.5% of renewable electricity, with biomass, wind, and solar making up the remaining 20%. Neither country used geothermal energy.
(191 Words)
Evaluation of the answer
Task Achievement: Band 8
- The response clearly describes the differences in electricity generation between Germany and France in 2009, effectively highlighting the key points, such as the dominance of conventional thermal in Germany and nuclear power in France.
- Specific data is included for both total output and percentages, and the comparisons between the two countries are well-drawn.
- The task is well-addressed, though minor improvements could be made by adding a brief summary of the contribution of each energy source across both countries.
Coherence and Cohesion: Band 8
- The response is logically organized, with a clear structure that compares Germany’s and France’s electricity generation.
- Linking phrases such as “In contrast,” “Moving on,” and “In detail” guide the reader smoothly through the analysis.
- The comparison between renewables in both countries is well-executed, though more explicit linking of the final paragraph to the initial comparisons could improve cohesion slightly.
Lexical Resource: Band 7
- The vocabulary is appropriate and varied, with terms such as “bulk,” “accounted for,” “proportion,” and “consisted of.”
- There is some repetition of key terms like “electricity” and “total,” which could be reduced by using synonyms or alternative phrases.
- Overall, the lexical resource is good, but more variety in describing proportions and comparisons could enhance the score.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 8
- A variety of grammatical structures is used effectively, including passive voice and comparative forms (“was far higher than,” “made up 80.5%”).
- There are no significant grammatical errors, and the sentence structures are varied and appropriate for the task.
- Slightly more complexity in sentence patterns could push the score higher.
Overall Band: 7.5-8
This is a clear, well-structured response that provides an accurate and detailed comparison of electricity generation between Germany and France. Minor improvements in lexical variety and more cohesive linking between sections could enhance the overall score.
Leave a Reply