Following is a report on average carbon dioxide emissions per person in the UK.
You should spend about 20 minutes on this task.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make a comparison where relevant.
The given line graph provides information about the average CO2 emissions per person. This data is collected from the time period between 1967 and 200 and is compared for four different countries.
Overall, the CO2 emissions in the United Kingdom were higher than those of other countries. Individually, carbon dioxide releases in the UK and Sweden decreased while they increased in Italy and Portugal by the end of the given period.
At the beginning, in Portugal the CO2 emissions were roughly about 1.2 metric tonnes per person. This figure noted a rise every decade and was almost five times higher than its initial value, despite a drop in the year 1987. Similarly, an average person in Italy generated approximately 4.2 metric tonnes of Carbon dioxide which increased till 1977. From 1977 to 1987, the emissions of CO2 dropped by a small quantity but grew thereafter and ultimately rose to 7.8 metric tonnes at the end.
In 1987, Sweden gave out about 8.3 metric tonnes CO2 per person. This figure reached its peak in 1977 and steeply decreased afterwards to settle at a value just above 5 metric tonnes. Initially, the CO2 emissions in the UK were at 11 metric tonnes. Subsequently, this number showed a downward trend and eventually touched the lowest point, less than nine metric tonnes in 2007.
The writer comprehends and appropriately summarises the information given. The writer also uses connectors and comparative words adequately. The writer analyses the data to come up with their own data points. There is a variety in sentence structures used which shows the writer’s language prowess. The writer groups information in paragraphs aptly.
The writer is not consistent with their number representation – choosing to spell out the numbers sometimes, and writing them numerically in others. There are very silly mistakes in the report, such as ‘200’ instead of ‘2007’ in the introduction paragraph, as well as ‘releases’ instead of ‘released’ in the overview paragraph, but those mistakes can be ignored since the rest of the report reads like a dream.