IELTS Writing Cambridge 17 Test 3

Cam 17 Test 3 Writing Task 1

The chart below gives information about how families in one country spent their weekly income in 1968 and in 2018.

Step 1: Analysing

bar chart, dynamic
tense: past simple
unit: %

Step 2: Paraphrasing

S = The percentage/ proportion of weekly income/ wage/ income a week which was paid for/ used for/ allocated for/ spent on/ expended on food / which families in this country used for food

In 1968, the percentage of wage which families in this country used for food was 35%

= 35% of weekly income of households in this nation was spent on food

= families in this country allocated more than a third of their weekly income for food

= The year 1968 witnessed/ recorded 35% of weekly income of families going on food

Step 3: Outline

Introduction

The bar chart shows the percentage of weekly income which was paid for eight categories by families in one country in two years: 1968 and 2018

Overview

food, fuel and power, clothing and footware, personal goods : decrease; housing, transport and leisure: increase, and the rest (household goods) the unique category whose figure stayed static
in 1968: food highest WHILE after 50 years, leisure

Body 1 → In 1968,

food highest (35%)
housing = clothing and footware (10%), and similarly, spending on leisure, transport, personal goods, and household goods was relatively the same (around 8%)
a minority of weekly income was used for fuel and power

Body 2 → in 2018

leisure: increased nearly threefold and became highest. Also, transport and housing: climbed to …
Food, crashed/ halved, compared with a much less significant drop in expenditures on … to 5% or under
The unique category whose spending showed no change was household goods

Step 4: Write an essay

The bar chart shows the percentage of weekly income which was paid for eight categories by families in one country in two years: 1968 and 2018

Overall, the highest families’ spending in 1968 went on food while the top belonged to expenditure for leisure in 2018. Among these categories, food, fuel and power, clothing and footware, and personal goods showed a downward trend while housing, transport and leisure experienced a rise, and the remaining category (household goods) stayed static.

In 1968, 35% of the wages of families in this area was allocated for food. Spending on housing, clothing and footware was equal to 10% each, and the figures for leisure, transport, personal goods and household goods were relatively the same (around 8%). In contrast, only a minority of weekly income was used for fuel and power, with around 3%.

After half a century, spending patterns diverged more widely. Families tripled their spending on leisure to about 23%, which was highest. Also, they spent larger proportions of income gained a week for transport and housing, at approximately 14% and 18% respectively. Reversely, food’s figure halved, compared with a minimal drop in expenditures on fuel and power, clothing and footware, and personal goods, of 5% or under. Household goods was the only expense to remain constant at 7%

Written by IELTS Thanh Loan

Gợi ý sách liên quan

Giải đề thi thật IELTS Writing Task 1 & 2

Nếu bạn muốn tham khảo các bài mẫu IELTS Writing bám sát với đề thi thật nhất, thuộc những chủ đề thường được hỏi trong IELTS Writing Task 2, sở hữu cuốn này chính là sự lựa chọn tuyệt vời.

Đọc thử
Đặt mua

Cam 17 Test 3 Writing Task 2

Some people believe that professionals, such as doctors and engineers, should be required to work in the country where they did their training. Others believe they should be free to work in another country if they wish.

Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Step 1: Analysing

Topic: Work
Type: Discussion with opinion
Answer: agree with the second view

Step 2: Paraphrasing

professionals ~ white-collar workers ~ skilled/ well-educated/ experts/ specialists
be required to – be obliged to do ST ~ be compulsory ~ be obligatory ~ have to…
work in the country where they did their training ~maintain their employment in the country whose education they benefit from ~ keep working in the nation where they are trained/educated
should be free ~ have freedom/ liberty to do ST ~ optional ~ under no restriction / no control

Step 3: Brainstorming

Introduction:

It is believed that well-educated workers should be obliged to work in the nation where they are trained while others hold an opinion that there should be freedom for them to choose their workplace. This essay will elaborate on these views and show/ express my agreement with the latter view.

BD1: Reasons for view 1

There are some reasons why well-educated workers should be obliged to work in the nation where they are trained

better for professionals

Explain: syllabus, lesson content is usually tailored based on circumstances, situations in their own countries → familiar with working environment, practices in the nation they study → adapt to/ acclimatize to working conditions faster/ at ease

owe a debt of money & gratitude → pay back / contribute the skills and knowledge to better that nation

BD2: Reasons for view 2

However, I believe that professionals should have right to work in any place they desire

liberty → a contributor to job satisfaction

Opposite: ….

In case a strict control of where to work is applied for professionals → impair the sharing of expertise/ culture

Eg: wish to study about hospitality in Switzerland but give up this dream if be forced to stay for year to work → homesickness, not desire to leave the fatherland permanently

Conclusion

While ….., I ….

Step 4: Write an essay

A common debate is whether specialists trained domestically in vocations including medicine and engineering are obliged to take on employment in their homeland or should have the discretion to choose an overseas role. This essay will first elaborate on the merits of each assessment, before explaining why I agree with the latter.

Supporters of in-demand professions having to work where their education was provided have several justifications. The first is that tertiary education is often subsidized by taxpayers. The cost of educating students is prohibitive, so if they do not receive government funding, only the wealthy will be able to graduate, limiting the opportunities for potentially brilliant talent. Therefore, alumni owe a duty to repay the society that assisted them. Furthermore, these professionals are likely to be more familiar with the unwritten cultural norms of the country, so can often achieve better outcomes for citizens.

Nevertheless, many believe it must be a professional’s choice as to their employment’s location. The most important consideration is they devote years of their lives to study, neglecting relationships and accruing debt. Allowing them to move overseas for higher income or a better lifestyle should be a reward for that sacrifice. For example, Indian doctors often move to Western nations because not only are the salaries significantly higher, but the natural environment is healthier for their families. In addition, it could be argued that all taxpayers receive benefits of some form or another and likewise have an obligation to their country, creating a potential roadblock to any migration.

To conclude, I believe both sides contain valid reasoning. However, in my opinion, if a country provides all citizens equal opportunities to be educated then there is no reason to limit anyone from freely making decisions about their career location. Moreover, I argue that migrants often contribute significantly to their homeland through financial remittances. Therefore, I suggest governments focus on creating the economic conditions that encourage in-demand professions to seek jobs locally.

Written by https://www.ieltsanswers.com/

Bài viết liên quan:

IELTS Thanh Loan – Trung tâm luyện thi IELTS cung cấp các khóa học IELTS Online, sách IELTS: