194 words (counted). With five lines, do not describe each one year by year. Group them: the two big modes that crossed (road and rail), then the three smaller modes (one falling, one rising, one fluctuating). The overview names the big trends with no numbers; the detail paragraphs carry the figures. There is no personal opinion or explanation in Task 1.
IntroductionThe line graph compares the volume of goods carried by road, rail, inland waterway, coastal shipping and pipeline in one country from 1995 to 2020, measured in billions of tonne-kilometres.
OverviewOverall, road haulage more than doubled and became by far the dominant mode, while rail and inland waterways lost ground. Pipeline transport grew for most of the period, whereas coastal shipping fluctuated without any clear long-term trend.
Detail — the two largest modesRail was the leading mode in 1995, carrying 85 billion tonne-km, compared with 60 billion by road. However, road freight rose consistently and overtook rail between 2000 and 2005, eventually reaching 130 billion in 2020. Rail, by contrast, declined to a low of 60 billion in 2015 before recovering slightly to 65 billion.
Detail — the three smaller modesAmong the smaller modes, inland waterways experienced the steepest relative decline, falling from 40 billion to just 15 billion and ending the period as the least used mode. Pipelines followed the opposite path, more than doubling from 15 billion to a peak of 40 billion in 2015, before dipping to 35 billion. Coastal shipping, meanwhile, rose and fell alternately, dropping to 20 billion in 2005 but finishing at 30 billion, exactly its 1995 level.
Read these from the bottom up and watch what changes: a clear overview, accurate figures or stages, grouping and comparison, and fewer errors are what lift the score. Every sample is full length. An answer under 150 words loses marks for Task Achievement whatever its quality, so never stop short. 🔑 নিচ থেকে উপরে পড়ুন এবং লক্ষ্য করুন কী বদলায়: স্পষ্ট overview, সঠিক তথ্য, grouping ও তুলনা, এবং কম ভুল — এগুলোই Band বাড়ায়। প্রতিটি নমুনা পূর্ণ দৈর্ঘ্যের। 150 শব্দের কম লিখলে লেখা যত ভালোই হোক, Task Achievement-এ নম্বর কাটা যায়।
The graph shows how much freight was moved by five transport modes in one country between 1995 and 2020, in billion tonne-kilometres.
Overall, road transport grew strongly and became the main way of moving goods, whereas rail and inland waterways declined. Pipelines generally increased, while coastal shipping went up and down.
In 1995 rail carried the most freight, at 85 billion tonne-km, with road in second place at 60 billion. Road freight then climbed in every five-year period and passed rail in the early 2000s, finishing at 130 billion, more than double its starting figure. Rail fell gradually to 60 billion in 2015, although it picked up slightly to 65 billion by 2020.
The other three modes carried much smaller amounts. Inland waterways dropped steadily from 40 billion to 15 billion, the lowest figure of any mode at the end. Pipeline transport rose from 15 billion to a high of 40 billion in 2015 and then fell back a little to 35 billion. Coastal shipping fluctuated between 20 and 35 billion and ended at the same level as it started, 30 billion.
The line graph illustrates the amount of freight that was transported by road, rail, inland waterways, coastal shipping and pipelines in a country from 1995 to 2020.
Overall, road became the most important mode of freight transport, while rail and inland waterways decreased. The other two modes changed less.
At the start of the period, rail was the most used mode with 85 billion tonne-km, and road was second with 60 billion. After that, road increased steadily and it overtook rail shortly after 2000. By 2020 it had reached 130 billion. On the other hand, rail decreased to 60 billion in 2015 and then rose a little to 65 billion.
Inland waterways fell continuously, from 40 billion in 1995 to 15 billion in 2020. In contrast, pipeline transport increased from 15 billion to 40 billion in 2015, but it decreased slightly in the last five years. Coastal shipping was quite unstable, going between 20 and 35 billion, and in 2020 it was 30 billion, which is the same as in 1995.
The graph shows the freight transported by five ways in one country between 1995 and 2020. It is measured in billion tonne-km.
Overall, road increased a lot and rail decreased, and road was the highest at the end.
In 1995, rail was 85 billion and road was 60 billion. Road increased every year and in 2005 it was 95 billion, which was more than rail. In 2020 road was 130 billion. Rail decreased to 70 billion in 2005 and 60 billion in 2015, then it increased to 65 billion in 2020.
Inland waterways was 40 billion in 1995 and it decreased to 15 billion in 2020. Pipeline was 15 billion in 1995 and increased to 40 billion in 2015, then decreased to 35 billion. Coastal shipping was 30 billion in 1995, 35 billion in 2000, 20 billion in 2005, 30 billion in 2010, 25 billion in 2015 and 30 billion in 2020. So it was going up and down.
In conclusion, road is the most popular way to transport freight.
This graph is showing about freight in one country from 1995 to 2020 and there are five types, road, rail, inland waterways, coastal shipping and pipeline.
In 1995 the rail is the most high with 85 and road is 60. Then road go up very much and in 2020 it reach 130, it is more than double. Rail go down until 60 in 2015 but in 2020 it go up again to 65. I think this is because many company prefer the road because it is more fast and more cheap.
Inland waterways also go down from 40 to 15. Pipeline go up from 15 to 40 in 2015 and in 2020 it is 35. Coastal shipping is up and down many times, it is 30 in 1995 and 30 in 2020 also.
So the road is very important for freight in this country and the rail and waterways is going down, and the other two is not change so much.
Tick each box you can honestly say is true of your answer. The four rows are the criteria an examiner uses — each is worth 25% of your Task 1 band. 🔑 আপনার উত্তরে যেটা সত্যি, শুধু সেই বক্সে টিক দিন। নিচের চারটি সারি হলো examiner-এর আসল criteria — প্রতিটি Task 1 band-এর 25%।
293 words (counted). In a discuss both views essay you must explain each view fairly and give your own opinion, stated in the introduction and kept consistent to the end. Notice that the writer does not just list points: each idea is explained and supported with a concrete example.
Introduction — the issue + positionWhether journalists should confine themselves to reporting facts or go further and explain what those facts signify has become a more pressing question as the volume of information available to the public has exploded. In my view, interpretation is not only legitimate but necessary, provided it is clearly distinguished from the reporting itself.
Body 1 — the fact-only viewThose who favour a purely factual approach argue that it respects the intelligence of the audience. When a news outlet presents events without commentary, citizens are free to weigh the evidence and reach their own conclusions, rather than absorbing the political leanings of an editor. This concern is understandable, since interpretation can easily slide into bias; a report on a new tax, for instance, can be made to sound either reckless or responsible simply through the choice of experts quoted.
Body 2 — the interpretation view + my opinionNevertheless, I believe that facts rarely speak for themselves. A statistic showing that unemployment has fallen by two per cent means little unless readers are told whether this reflects genuine job creation or merely people abandoning the search for work. Without such context, audiences may be misled not by false information but by incomplete information. Moreover, complex issues such as climate science or public finance require specialist knowledge that most people cannot reasonably be expected to possess, and skilled journalists are well placed to bridge that gap.
Body 3 — how to interpret responsiblyThe real safeguard against bias, therefore, is transparency rather than silence. News organisations can separate straight reporting from analysis, label opinion pieces clearly and present competing interpretations side by side, so that explanation informs the public without dictating to it.
ConclusionIn conclusion, although the desire for fact-only reporting stems from a reasonable fear of bias, I am convinced that thoughtful interpretation, openly signposted, serves audiences far better than a bare list of facts.
Notice the climb: a clear position that answers the exact question, ideas that are developed rather than listed, logical paragraphing, precise vocabulary, and complex sentences with few errors. Every sample is full length. An essay under 250 words is penalised under Task Response, and Task 2 counts twice as much as Task 1. 🔑 ধাপগুলো লক্ষ্য করুন: প্রশ্নের সঠিক উত্তর দেওয়া স্পষ্ট position, শুধু তালিকা নয় — developed ভাবনা, যুক্তিসংগত প্যারা, নির্দিষ্ট শব্দ, এবং কম ভুলে জটিল বাক্য। প্রতিটি নমুনা পূর্ণ দৈর্ঘ্যের। 250 শব্দের কম লিখলে Task Response-এ নম্বর কাটা যায়, আর Task 2-এর ওজন Task 1-এর দ্বিগুণ।
There is ongoing debate about whether the role of journalists is simply to report facts or whether they should also explain the meaning of events. While both positions have merit, I believe that news organisations should offer interpretation, as long as it is clearly identified.
On the one hand, supporters of fact-only reporting claim that it allows people to think for themselves. If a newspaper or television channel presents events without comment, readers and viewers can examine the evidence and form their own judgements instead of adopting the views of a particular editor. This argument is persuasive because interpretation can easily become biased. For example, the same economic policy can be presented as either a success or a failure depending on which specialists a journalist chooses to interview.
On the other hand, many people argue that facts on their own are often meaningless or even misleading. A report stating that crime has risen by five per cent does not tell the audience whether this is a serious long-term problem or simply the result of more crimes being reported to the police. In addition, topics such as medical research or international trade are highly technical, and ordinary people depend on journalists to make them understandable.
In my opinion, the second view is more convincing, but only if interpretation is handled responsibly. News providers should separate news reports from analysis and make it obvious when a piece expresses an opinion. They should also present more than one interpretation of controversial issues.
In conclusion, although fact-only reporting may reduce bias, I believe that carefully labelled explanation helps the public to understand the world more accurately.
Nowadays people receive news from many different sources, and there is a debate about what journalists should do. Some people think they should only report facts, while others believe they should also explain events. In my opinion, explaining events is important, but it should be done carefully.
Firstly, there are good reasons why some people prefer journalists to give only facts. When the news is presented without any opinion, the audience can decide for themselves what is right or wrong. This is fairer because journalists, like everyone else, have their own political views, and these can affect the way they describe a story. For instance, a report about a new government law may sound positive or negative depending on the words the journalist uses.
Secondly, other people believe that the audience needs help to understand the news. Many issues today are very complicated, such as climate change or the economy, and most people do not have enough knowledge to understand them completely. If journalists only give numbers and facts, people may misunderstand the situation. Therefore, news organisations should explain the background of a story and what it might mean for ordinary people.
In my view, the second opinion is more reasonable. Facts without explanation can confuse readers, and good journalists have the experience to explain events clearly. However, they should make it clear when they are giving their own opinion so that the audience does not mistake it for facts.
In conclusion, both views have some advantages, but I believe that journalists should explain the news as well as report it, as long as they are honest about the difference between facts and opinions.
In these days, news is very important in our life and people have different opinions about the job of journalists. Some people think journalists must only give facts, but other people think they must also explain the news. I will discuss both views and give my opinion.
People who believe journalists should only report facts have some reasons. The first reason is that people can make their own decision. If the news only gives facts, the readers can think about it and decide by themselves. The second reason is that journalists can be bias. Some newspapers support one political party, so if they explain the news, they will explain it in a way that helps that party, and this is not fair for the readers.
On the other hand, people who think journalists should explain the news also have reasons. Many news is difficult to understand for normal people, for example news about economy or science. If the journalist does not explain, people will not understand what is happening and they may be confused. Also, journalists have more information than the readers, so they can explain better.
In my opinion, I think journalists should explain the news because most people are busy and they do not have time to research everything. But journalists should be careful and not give only their own opinion, because this can make people believe wrong things.
In conclusion, there are reasons for both views. Journalists should report facts, but I think it is better if they also explain the news so people can understand it easily.
Nowadays there are many news in the TV, newspaper and internet. Some people say journalist should only tell facts and other people say they should explain the news. In this essay I will discuss both side and give my opinion.
First, some people think journalist must only tell the facts. Because people are not stupid and they can understand the news by themself. If journalist give his opinion, maybe it is wrong and people will believe the wrong thing. For example, in my country some TV channel always support the government and they explain everything in the good way for government. This is very bad for the people.
Second, other people think journalist must explain the news. Because some news is very hard, like economy news, and many people did not study this subject. So they need someone to explain them. For example, my uncle read the economy news every day but he still not understand why the price of everything is going up. If nobody explain, they will not understand and the news is not useful for them.
In my opinion, I agree with both side. Journalist should tell the facts but sometime they also can explain because it is helpful for people. But they must be honest and not lie to the people. Lying is very bad thing and the government should punish journalist who lie.
In conclusion, both opinion is good and journalist should tell the facts and also explain sometimes. Then people will be happy with the news.
Tick each box you can honestly say is true of your essay. These four rows are the examiner's criteria — each worth 25% of your Task 2 band. Task 2 counts twice as much as Task 1 in your overall Writing score. 🔑 আপনার essay-তে যেটা সত্যি, শুধু সেই বক্সে টিক দিন। এই চারটি সারি examiner-এর criteria — প্রতিটি 25%। সামগ্রিক Writing Score-এ Task 2-এর ওজন Task 1-এর দ্বিগুণ।