187 words (counted). With two pie charts, compare the same category across the two years rather than describing one chart and then the other. Group the categories that shrank and those that grew, and use the language of proportion (accounted for, a third, share, respectively, ninefold). Past tenses throughout, because both years are finished.
IntroductionThe two pie charts compare the proportion of farmland in one country that was devoted to six different uses in 1990 and in 2020.
OverviewOverall, cereal crops occupied the largest share of agricultural land in both years, although their dominance weakened slightly. The most notable change was the dramatic expansion of land used for biofuel crops, while the shares given to grazing and fallow land contracted considerably.
Detail — the shrinking categoriesIn 1990, just over a third of farmland (34.6%) was planted with cereals, and grazing accounted for a further 28.3%. By 2020, these figures had fallen to 31.2% and 21.5% respectively, with grazing recording the largest decline of any category. Land left fallow shrank even more sharply in relative terms, from 11.4% to only 5.3%, making it the smallest category in 2020.
Detail — the growing categoriesBy contrast, biofuel crops, which had occupied a mere 1.7% of farmland in 1990, rose to 15.5%, a roughly ninefold increase that lifted them from the smallest category to the third largest. The area used for fruit and vegetables also grew, from 9.8% to 13.6%, whereas the share devoted to fodder crops edged down from 14.2% to 12.9%.
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 pie charts show how the agricultural land in a particular country was divided between six uses in 1990 and 2020.
Overall, cereals took up the biggest proportion of farmland in both years, while the most significant change was the sharp rise in land used for biofuel crops. In contrast, the shares of grazing land and fallow land both fell noticeably.
In 1990, cereals accounted for 34.6% of agricultural land, followed by grazing at 28.3%. Thirty years later, cereals had decreased slightly to 31.2%, whereas grazing dropped more significantly to 21.5%. The proportion of fallow land more than halved, falling from 11.4% to 5.3%, which made it the smallest category in 2020.
On the other hand, the land devoted to biofuel crops grew enormously, from only 1.7% to 15.5%, so that it became the third largest use of farmland. Fruit and vegetables also expanded, rising from 9.8% to 13.6%, while fodder crops declined marginally from 14.2% to 12.9%.
The two pie charts illustrate the proportion of farmland in one country that was used for six different purposes in 1990 and 2020.
Overall, cereals were the largest category in both years, but the biggest change was in biofuel crops, which increased dramatically. Most of the other uses became smaller, apart from fruit and vegetables.
In 1990, more than a third of the land (34.6%) was used for cereals, and grazing was the second largest use with 28.3%. Fodder crops made up 14.2%, fallow land 11.4% and fruit and vegetables 9.8%, while biofuel crops were only 1.7%, the smallest share.
By 2020, the share of cereals had fallen slightly to 31.2% and grazing had decreased to 21.5%. Fallow land also went down considerably to 5.3%. In contrast, biofuel crops increased to 15.5%, which was about nine times higher than in 1990. Fruit and vegetables also rose to 13.6%, whereas fodder crops dropped a little to 12.9%.
The pie charts show how agricultural land was used in one country in 1990 and 2020. There are six types of land use.
Overall, cereals was the biggest in both years and biofuel crops increased a lot.
In 1990, cereals was 34.6% and grazing was 28.3%. Fodder crops was 14.2% and fallow was 11.4%. Fruit and vegetables was 9.8% and biofuel crops was the smallest, only 1.7%. Cereals and grazing together was more than half of the land.
In 2020, cereals decreased to 31.2% and grazing also decreased to 21.5%. Fodder crops decreased to 12.9% and fallow decreased to 5.3%. However, fruit and vegetables increased to 13.6% and biofuel crops increased to 15.5%, which is a big change. So in 2020 biofuel crops was bigger than fodder crops and fruit and vegetables.
In conclusion, the land for cereals, grazing, fodder and fallow decreased but the land for fruit and vegetables and biofuel crops increased between 1990 and 2020.
The pie chart is about the farm land in one country in 1990 and 2020, and it have six part.
In 1990 the cereals is the most big part, it is 34.6% and grazing is 28.3%. The fodder crops is 14.2% and fallow is 11.4%, fruit and vegetable is 9.8%. The biofuel is very small only 1.7%.
In 2020 cereals is 31.2% so it is little bit down. Grazing is 21.5% and it is down also. Fallow is 5.3%, it is down very much because now farmer use all of the land. Fruit and vegetable is up to 13.6%. Biofuel is up very much to 15.5%, I think because the oil price is very high and people want to use biofuel for the car. Fodder crops is 12.9%.
So in this two years some part is up and some part is down, the biggest change is biofuel and the cereals is still the biggest. The farmer change the land a lot in thirty years.
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%।
304 words (counted). The question asks you to weigh advantages against disadvantages, so the essay must say clearly which side is heavier, and keep saying it. Notice that the writer explains both sides, then shows why the disadvantages can be managed: that is what makes the judgement convincing rather than just stated.
Introduction — the issue + positionA growing number of court systems now hear civil disputes and minor criminal cases by video link rather than in a physical courtroom. Although this shift raises genuine concerns about fairness, I believe that its benefits clearly outweigh its drawbacks, at least for straightforward cases.
Body 1 — advantagesThe most compelling advantage is improved access to justice. Attending court in person can mean taking a day off work, arranging childcare and travelling long distances, costs that fall hardest on people with low incomes or those living in remote areas. When a hearing about an unpaid bill or a traffic offence can be joined from home, far fewer people are deterred from defending their rights. Online hearings are also considerably cheaper to run and can be scheduled more flexibly, which helps to reduce the backlogs that leave claimants waiting months for a decision.
Body 2 — disadvantagesThere are, of course, real disadvantages. Not everyone has a reliable internet connection or the confidence to use video software, so a digital system risks excluding the very groups it aims to help. Critics also argue that a screen makes it harder for judges to assess whether a witness is telling the truth, and that the formality of a courtroom encourages participants to take proceedings seriously.
Body 3 — why the advantages are heavierHowever, these problems can largely be managed. Courts can provide supervised video rooms in libraries or community centres for those without suitable equipment, and serious or complex trials, where credibility is central, can continue to be held in person. The drawbacks, in other words, point to the need for careful limits rather than to an argument against the system as a whole.
ConclusionIn conclusion, while remote hearings are not suitable for every case, the gains they offer in cost, speed and accessibility are substantial, and I am convinced that they outweigh the disadvantages when the technology is applied selectively.
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।
In several countries, courts now hear minor criminal cases and civil disputes online, with all participants joining by video. In my view, this development brings more advantages than disadvantages, although it is not appropriate for every type of case.
The main benefit of online hearings is that they make the legal system more accessible. Going to court in person often involves travel costs, lost wages and arrangements for childcare, which can discourage people on low incomes from defending themselves. If someone accused of a minor driving offence can attend from home, they are more likely to take part and present their side of the story. Furthermore, video hearings are cheaper for the state and allow cases to be scheduled more quickly, which reduces the delays that many court systems currently face.
Nevertheless, there are some important drawbacks. Elderly people and those without a stable internet connection may struggle to participate, which could make the system less fair rather than more fair. In addition, some lawyers believe that judges find it harder to judge a witness's honesty through a screen, since body language is less visible.
However, I would argue that these issues can be solved. Governments could set up video booths in public buildings for people who lack the necessary technology, and serious criminal trials could remain in traditional courtrooms. This would allow the advantages of online hearings to be enjoyed without sacrificing fairness in more complex cases.
To conclude, although online courts present certain risks, I believe their benefits in terms of cost, speed and access to justice outweigh the disadvantages, provided they are used mainly for simple cases.
Nowadays, in some countries, courts are using video technology so that people can take part in legal cases online instead of going to a courtroom. I believe that this trend has more advantages than disadvantages.
The first advantage is that online hearings save time and money for ordinary people. Many people live far from the nearest court, and they have to travel for hours and miss a day of work to attend a hearing. With online courts, they can join from their home or office, which is much more convenient. Another advantage is that the government can save money, because it does not need to build or maintain so many court buildings. As a result, cases can be dealt with faster and people do not need to wait so long for a decision.
On the other hand, there are some disadvantages. Firstly, not everyone has a good internet connection or a computer, especially older people and people in rural areas. These people may find it difficult to take part, and this is unfair. Secondly, it may be harder for a judge to decide if a person is lying when they can only see them on a screen.
Despite these problems, I think the advantages are more important. The government can help people who do not have technology by providing special rooms where they can use a computer. Also, serious cases can still take place in a normal courtroom.
In conclusion, online court hearings have some disadvantages, but I believe that the benefits, such as saving time and money, are greater, especially for small cases.
Nowadays technology is changing many things in our life, and now some countries use online video for court cases. In this essay I will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this, and I think the advantages are more.
There are many advantages of online court. Firstly, people do not need to travel to the court. Travelling is expensive and it takes a lot of time, especially for people who live in villages far from the city. Secondly, it is cheaper for the government because they don't need big buildings and many staff. Thirdly, it is faster, so people can get the decision quickly. In my country, sometimes a court case takes many years, so online court can help this problem.
However, there are also some disadvantages. The biggest problem is that some people don't have internet or they don't know how to use computer. For example, old people in rural areas may not understand the technology, so they cannot join the court properly. Another problem is that the internet can stop working during the case, and this will make the case more slow. Also, the judge cannot see the person face to face, so it is difficult to know if he is telling the truth.
In my opinion, the advantages are more than the disadvantages because online court saves money and time for everyone. The government should teach people how to use the technology so that everyone can join.
In conclusion, online court has advantages and disadvantages, but I believe the advantages are bigger and more countries should use it.
Today many thing is online, like shopping and study, and now also court. Some people think it is good and some people think it is bad. I will write about the advantage and disadvantage.
The advantage is people can stay in home and they don't need to go to court. Going to court is very boring and take a lot of time, and in the court there is many people and it is not comfortable. Also the people save money for the transport. Also the government save money because they don't need to pay electricity and other cost for the big court building.
The disadvantage is the internet. In my country the internet is not good, sometimes it is very slow and sometimes it is stop. If the internet stop in the middle of the court case, it is big problem. Also many old people don't know how to use the zoom or other app, so they need help from their children. And some people can cheat because the judge can not see everything in the room.
I think online court is good and bad. It is good for small case like traffic fine but for big case like murder it is not good, the people must go to the real court. Because big case is very serious and the judge need to see the person.
In conclusion, online court have many advantage and also disadvantage. If the government make the internet better, then online court will be more good for everybody.
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।