The charts below show the percentage of water used for different purposes in six areas of the world.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
Write at least 150 words.
TEST TAKER'S RESPONSE.
The pie charts compare the proportion of water consumtion (consumption) for different demands in six regions worldwide. It is clear that water consumption for agricultural use is by far the most amount (used) of (for)the areas given. However, household use of water reports the least share. 88% of water (is) used for agricualtural (agricultural) in Central Asia, which is merely 4% upper (higher) than the figure of Africa, and 3% more than that of South East Asia. South America records the fourth ranking, at 71%, sharing SPLequivalentlly to the sum of water use in North America and Europe, in which the former at 39% and the latter at 32%. Europe is the only one that use up to half water for industry among all the six areas, reaching at 53%, ( Europe uses 53% of water for industrial use, ) and the second one is in North America, with 48%. The other districts report all under 13%. (All the other regions report almost 13%.) To be specific, South East Asia shares 12%, following (followed) by 10% in South America and a halved figure in Central Asia, at just 5%. The highest proportion of domestic use is in South America, only at 19%, while roughly 14% accounts for the figure of North America and Europe. The magnitude in Africa is slightly higher than the rest (other)two areas, from (at) 9% to (and) 7% in both Central Asia and South East Asia (respectively).
The description of the data would have been good however, there are a number of grammar errors that need to be addressed. You need to avoid formation errors. Mind the verb tenses and avoid poor word choices. The grammar errors have affected the understanding of some parts, for example, “Europe is the only one that use up to half water for industry among all the six areas,” The text “use up half water for industry” cannot be understood. You also need to use more lexical resources.
The structure is good because you developed an introduction and main body. The response is well organized. The cohesion is affected by the errors in some parts.
The description of the data is relatively good. The introduction hints on the data presented. In the main body, you have described the data presented. The extraction of the data is basically exhaustive. The comparison of the data is relatively good.
In all, the grammar errors are quite many. The structure is good. The description of the data is good though you can make better comparison and use more lexical resources.