hi buddies, this is an essay prepared for my IELTS test, please help correct it. Thanks a lot.^_^ The pie charts show the change of the quantity of electricity sources in Australia and France between 1980 and 2000. Between these years the total electricity production almost doubled, rising from 100 units to 170 in Australia, and from 90 to 180 units in France. In 1980, the use of coal accounted for the half of the total production, followed by natural gas, hydro power (each producing 20 units) and oil (only 10 units). While by 2000, the percentage of coal production rose to almost 75%, then came by hydro power (approximately 20%) and oil. By contrast, the major source of electricity production were coal and natural gas (each for 25 units respectively). The remaining 40 units were mainly produced from nuclear power and oil, with hydro power only contributing 5 units. However, these years had witnessed the growing in nuclear power that took up almost 75%, followed by oil (about 13%), while other sources were no longer significant.

hello guys, this is my practice for IELTS test, which mainly about the analysis of data. Thanks^_^ The graph shows the increase in the ageing population in Japan, Sweden and USA. It indicates the percentage of elderly people in all three countries increase by almost 25% of the respective populations by 2040. In 1940 the proportion of aged 65 or more account for only 5% in Japan, approximately 7% in Sweden and 9% in the US. However, the figures for the western countries grew to about 15% in around 1990, the figure for Japan dropped to almost 2.5%, before rising to 5% again at the present time. In spite of previous fluctuations, the proportion of older people would probably continue to climb in the next two decades in the three countries. A more dramatic surge is predicted between 2030 and 2040 in Japan, by that time the proportion of elderly people in the three countries would be similar.

hi guys, this is my practice for itelts test, please help correct it. Thanks a lot. ^_^ Question: People now can perform some everyday tasks, such as shopping and banking as well as business transactions, without meeting other people face to face. What are the effects of this development on individuals and on society as a whole? It is a prevalent phenomenon that a considerable number of people prefer to do some business transactions like shopping and banking online instead of meeting people in reality. It is of great significance to learn about the reasons and effects imposed on individuals and society. From my perspective, there are two driving factors leading to such a trend. First and foremost, it is the development of technology that prompts transactions between online, which means that more and more persons tend to make bank transactions on the internet rather than in the bank. Furthermore, the emergence of e-commerce promotes people to purchase things online rather than in the shopping mall. For individuals, it is of great convenience for them to buy things or banking online, which actually save a great quantity of time. People do not have to wait a long line in the bank or go further places to go shopping, while they could deal with almost everything at home. Whereas, this trend also becomes a hindrance between people’s interactions. Given that people would rather satisfy their own needs online, the face to face interactions between are less than before as well. For society, the rise of online transactions improves efficiency of social operation, which is conducive to both government and citizens. Lacking of efficiency, a country would not be prosperous. However, the negative side is that traditional physical entities become a victim of the internet, which mainly because the majority of customers may transfer to online consuming. To conclude, I tend to believe that the rise of internet and e-commerce is the major contributing factor to such a trend. However, I personally think that the pros outweigh cons further, which means that the convenience and efficiency it brings is worthy.

hello, guys. this is a issue on whether governments should interfere with people's lifestyle. Question: Some people think it is the responsibility for government to ensure that people have healthy lifestyles. Others think people should have a free for their own lifestyles decisions. The issue whether government should hold responsibility for people’s healthy lifestyles has sparked off an intense debate. As far as I’m concerned, I personally believe that it is of paramount significant for government to make sure people live a healthy lifestyle. Some people hold that the government plays an important role in regulating citizens, so it should ensure that citizens live in a healthy condition. To begin with, it is widely accepted that that the government serves as the servants of people, which means it should take citizens’ life into consideration. As we all know, the first one is that the government should make sure people live healthily. Only in this way, people would have more energy to pursue their studies and careers. Furthermore, the cost of unhealthy lifestyle is enormous so that this kind of lifestyle may lead to a waste of national funding that should have originally been utilized in more important places. Whereas, others tend to believe that citizens should have free right to choose their own lifestyles. First and foremost, everyone has his or her free will, which means they could select what to do regardless of other people’s thoughts. People should have the right to choose what life they would like to live no matter whether it is good or not. Moreover, the definition of healthy lifestyle is not clear, which causes a difficulty for government in interfering with the lifestyle of people. To conclude, although people do have the free right to make their own lifestyle decisions, I’m personally inclined to support that government should take participate in regulating the lifestyle of people.