The chart below shows the average daily minimum and maximum levels of two air pollutants in four big cities in 2000.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The provided chart gives information about the maximum and minimum rates of air pollution caused by the Sulphur dioxide (SO2) and the Dinitrous oxide (N2O) in four cosmopolitans, namely Los Angeles, Calcuta, Beijing and Mexico in 2000.
As is presented, the lowest values of SO2 were in Los Angeles, where they were maximum 10 and minimum 10, while in Mexico were the highest as the maximum was 200 and minimum was 80. The lowest levels of N2O were in Beijing, maximum 54 and minimum 14, despite that in Calcuta the maximum level of N2O is 52, because the minimum is 30. The highest levels of N2O were again in Mexico as the minimum rate was 113 and the maximum rate 207.
To sum up, Mexico had the highest levels of all four pollutants in it air, while the other three cities either had high levels of only one pollutant, or like in Calcuta all are low and almost equal.
157 words
Re-post of my T1, from 30.01 thank you!
-
- IELTS Examiner
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 4:34 am
Re: Re-post of my T1, from 30.01 thank you!
Hello!
Overall, quite good, but check the minimum for LA and in Calcutta 'because the minimum is 30' is incorrect.
You've just managed to go over the minimum word requirement and this can be seen in the 'quick' way in which you cover the data. Not all the data is mentioned.
However, grammar is reasonable and you have included some comparatives which is good to see. Organisation is reasonably clear, though you do 'jump' a little from point to point.
This could easily be improved to make a good/very good report.
All the best,
David
Overall, quite good, but check the minimum for LA and in Calcutta 'because the minimum is 30' is incorrect.
You've just managed to go over the minimum word requirement and this can be seen in the 'quick' way in which you cover the data. Not all the data is mentioned.
However, grammar is reasonable and you have included some comparatives which is good to see. Organisation is reasonably clear, though you do 'jump' a little from point to point.
This could easily be improved to make a good/very good report.
All the best,
David