« IELTS Reading: look for keywords | Main | IELTS Speaking Part 3: sports »

August 25, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

In modern era ,museums and art galleries has gained much popularity due to the constant attention of media and advanced telecommunication facilities supported by the innovation of science and technology.I completely disagree with the idea that disappearance of outstanding museums and art galleries owing to high technical assistance .
Firstly ,I am convinced that arm-chair tourism is a one of direct effect of latest technology which has dominated entire tourist industry at an exponential height in recent years. Art lovers who tend to develop taste for culture and travelling have proved their intense desire for visiting museums and art galleries with the explosion of web pages and constant connectivity of all corners of the globe thus lead to getting involved with true significance of cultural heritages. By creating lively pictures on screens by means of sophisticated artificial knowledge, there is a mounting tendency among people to visit those vibrant places In reality .We can take into consideration that the idea of cultivation of art and history is seems to be very easy with modern participation of technology. A good illustration of this .the places which historically prominent and geologically isolated in past days are now overcrowded with local and international tourists.
Secondly , funds from states and non- government -organizations are likely to poured into this field for the maintenance of resources which account for well –equipped friendly environment for the entertainment and education. Due to the higher demand for the museums and art galleries it is quite understandable that vitality of this type of places stay longer as long as technology is play a crucial role in conservation of our ancient heritage. Most of the popular museums and art galleries are now highly treated with state of art facilities that act as a catalyst for creating hunger for the ancient advocacy towards human civilization.
To sum up ,it is not a fair statement to say museums and art galleries would perish with the advancement of technology.

Dear Simon,

Is that all right for not writing a conclusion?

Hi Melanie,

Have a look at this lesson:


Hi Simon,

In your last paragraph, you used "classed" instead of "classified". Is there any rationale behind this? I think classified is more common than classed.

Hi Ed,

Both are equally good. I thought about using 'classified' but I felt that 'classed' sounded a bit less scientific. On another day I might have chosen 'classified'.

Hi Simon,
I want to ask about preposition in your essay. Can you use :
- "the figure of couples" instead of "the figure for couples"
- "levels of poverty were higher in/among single people instead of" "levels of poverty were higher for single people"


Hi Pham,

- It's much better to use "the figure for".
- "Among" is fine, but don't use "in"

is this sentence correct

21% of sole parent were living in poverty line. However, the figure for parent with children were lower at 12%.

Hi Simran,

Just check your singulars and plurals (e.g. 21% of parents)

Hi Simon.

In task 1 writing, we should keep it objective, impersonal. And why in your essay you used "likely to" when all the figure was given.
Eg : "people with children were more likely to be poor than those without"

Thanks for your answer.

Hi Pham,

Keep it objective in the sense that you shouldn't give subjective opinions about the reasons behind the figures (e.g. don't try to explain why fewer old people were poor).

I used "less likely to be poor" to mean the same as "the proportion of poor people was smaller". Remember, in each family type, the rest of the people were NOT poor (e.g. 6% poor, 94% not poor), so we can say that "old people were less likely to be poor" because the probability of finding a poor person in that group was lower.

I hope this makes sense.

Thanks for your explanation

Hi Simon,
I have just practiced this task and here is my essay

The tables illustrates the percentage of six different family types who were in poor living condition in Australia at the year end of the Twentieth century.

It is noticeable that there were nearly two million people or 11 % of Australian population living in poverty in 1999. However, the proportion of single adult group and sole parent group were almost double the figure of all households with 19% and 21% in turn.

The next thing to be considered is that the levels of poverty were lower for the types of aged people (6% and 4%) and people without children (7%) than the rest of family types. The situation of couples with children group was recorded at a higher amount by 933 000 of Australian citizens or 12% of people living in poverty.
In conclusion, the table basically supposed that the group of single adult and sole parent were more possible to live in a destitute life than those other cases.

Is this good or not? Which band score could it get ?
By the way, thanks for your website. It is really helpful

Hi Linh,

I afraid I don't give essay feedback or scores - everyone would send me their essays if I did.

You seem to have the right idea.

Hi Simon
i had tested in task one and the question was about table for three period 2000,2011,2020 with three items but i got confused about the tense and how should i use , please advise and could you please post for us an example like that

Hi Simon,
Do you provide any general writing guidelines on your website?

Hi Samer,

Look at point 7 in the lesson below:



Hi Rosie,

I'm afraid this site is only for the academic test. Sorry about that.


can I say that "people with children were likely to be poorer than those without."

Thank you!

Hi Som,

Yes, that's a good sentence.

Dear Simon ,
Could I say in the second paragraph,
It is clear that families with one parent were the poorest ,while aged couples constituted the least proportion of people who lived in poverty in Australia during the same year.

Could I use stood at in tables?
Is it rt to say 12% of couples with children were poor .this figure was considerably high compared to number of couples who had no children .The later stood at 7%.
Thanks a lot for your sincere help.

Is it ok to use the past cont ,because you always advise using the past simple?


Hi Moka,

You can't really say that they were the poorest. It's more accurate to say that there was a higher proportion of poor families in the 'single parent' category. Also, write 'lowest proportion' rather than 'least'.

'Stood' is fine.

That use of 'living' is not past continuous. It's part of the noun phrase, not the main verb. You could also use the plural 'partners'.

Overall, 11% of Australians, or 1,837,000 people, were living in poverty in 1999.

you wrote in this website that it is good to write task 1 either present simple tense or past simple tense(as per Question) or passive(for process). but why did you use past continuous in the aforesaid sentence.can you tell me something about this....please

Hi Zillur,

Yes, I used past continuous in this essay because 'living' is used in the question and in the table. The past simple 'lived' would be ok, but 'were living' seems a bit better in this case.

In the exam, if you're not sure, use past simple.

hi simon
what does the sentence ' the same pattern can be seen for the people with no children' stands for in your fourth paragraph. same pattern with which category of people?

Hi Josh,

The pattern refers to the higher percentages of poverty for single people than for couples - I mentioned that in the first sentence of paragraph 4.

hi Simon
are these sentences correct?
the figures for poverty were highest FOR single parents,at 21%
the proportion of poverty was 21% IN single parents.
the percentage of poverty was 21% IN single parents.

should I use IN or FOR?

Hi Sohaib,

I wouldn't use "in single parents" here. But you can say "in the single parent group/category".

You can use 'for' or 'among' for all of them.

Thank you Simon.
God bless you

hello Simon;

i am so confused with this sentence you say in second(overall) paragraph ;

"people with children were more likely to be poor than those without" i think it is not true according to the table since couple with children %12 while single with no children %19. please help me Simon

Hi Emre,

I'm comparing like this:
- couple with children = 12%
- couple no children = 7%

Your comparison confuses 2 variables because you compared 'couples' with 'singles' AND 'children' with 'no children' in the same comparison.

thank you so much Simon, i will bother you a lot in the next two month :) i wish you all the best

Hello Simon,

i wonder why you used "likely to be" in this essay. Isn't that table precise and rates are unchangeable. as far as i know likely is the possibility. what i am missin sir please help!!

Hi Benjamin,

Not everyone in each family type is poor, only the percentage shown. If we take a random single aged person, he or she is less likely to be poor than a random sole parent.

The table gives breakdown about the percentage of people who are involved in six types of household in Australia in the year 1999.
Only 11% Australian, or 1,837,000 people, were living in poverty in 1999.The lowest proportion is aged couple with 4%, less than three times couple with children, about 12%. The other feature is 7% or 211,000 couple who live in without children.
In regard to single people, 6% or 54,000 people was the percentage of single aged person in Australia. By contrast, the figure for sole parent and single without children are almost treble with 21% and 19% respectively.
It is noticeable that the figure for single group is considerable higher than couple group about the percentage of people who live in poor condition in Australia.

can i analyze this question by this way?
give me some advice,
thank for your help.

hi, Simon
i need advice for task 2
what i do if i don't know what the topic about

Hi, Simon
I find your site really useful for me as well as your book :)
I have a small question.
You used " levels of poverty " in your report.
But for me, levels describe how poor they are and not the proportion of poor people in each category.
Is it correct to use levels instead of percentage or proportion?

Hi, Simon:

I felt weird that "Just over one fifth of single parents were living in poverty, whereas only 12% of parents living with a partner were classed as poor."

In the sentence, "just" and "only" have similar meaning, but you used "whereas" to connect them. I would think "whereas" is used as "but".

Thank you

Hi Chiao,

Your misunderstanding relates to the use of "just" - I wrote "just over", which means "a bit more than" rather than "only". It is possible to use "just over" with a very high number (e.g. just over 99% - this doesn't mean "only 99%").

I wrote "just over one fifth" referring to the 21%, and I think it's fine to contrast 21% with 12% because it's quite a significant difference.

Greetings from Uzbekistan!
What about referring to the numbers in categories, not only percentages?

This is awesome essay. Thank you very much.

Hi Simon,you write:" 19% of single people were living below the poverty line". However, the topic is about families living in poverty. I think living below the poverty line and living in poverty are different. Can you explain for me? Thank you

Hello Simon,
The website is really very interesting. thank you so much for this. what i wanted to know is, in task two here, u have kept your strong opinion in the first introductory paragraph. what if we discuss both the aspects of the topic (in faour and against) and give the opinion in last concluding paragraph only?? i hope u will reply. it will be a great help for me if u do.

Hi Simon,
Should I write "Australian poor families" or "poor Australian families"?
hope you will reply it. many thanks


how can you say the "parents living with a partner" in the third paragraph? where I can find the original meaning in the table?


The given table highlight that the porpotion of various division of families lifestyle in scarcity of money in Asutrila in 1999.over,the entire time period.

Overall,we can easily enumarte that sole parent occupied high amount just over a fifth where as aged people were least in bottom of priority .More likely to be poorer,6% and 4% for single aged person and aged couple respectively.

Most popular family were sole parent over 2million in poverty and aged people were in significant amount 6%and 4% for single aged and couple aged people. Likewise couple with children were above a tenth living in poverty line.In the same way without children were blow a tenth and small proportion 19% and 7% for single and couple of no children like to be poor in end 1999 in Austrila.

please can you tell me that what score I will get for it.

The table compares the percentage and number of people living in poverty among different kinds of Australian families in 1999.

It is clear that sole parent family had the highest proportion of poverty, while the aged couple family had the lowest. In addition, couple with children family made up more than half of total people living in poverty.

In general, 11% of all Australian households lived under the poverty line in 1999. Among six specific kinds of families, three of them had lower figures. The number of couple with no children and single aged person were 7% and 6% respectively, the figure for aged couple family stood at 4%.

The other three types of families had higher poverty ratio than 11%. 21% of sole parent family lived in poverty, which is the highest. Single with no children ranked the second highest, at 19%. The number of couple with children was 12%.

the table represents the percentage of seven types of families living in poverty in Australia in1999


The table describes the figure for unsimiliar types of families living in poorness in Australia in 1999.

According to the data of table, only 11% Australians or 1.8 million people were living in poverty in 1999.

The lowest proportion is aged couple with 4% which of less than 3 times couple with children, about 12%. The other feature is couple who live without children with 7% or 211 thousands.

The highest percentage is sole parents with 21% and single without children ranked the second highest percentage, at 19%. Moreover, one of the lower proportions is single aged person with 6%.

Hi Simon,
This sentence in fouth paragraph :whereas only 12% of parents living with a partner were classed as poor.
I do not understand that why ''couple with children'' written is parents living a partner ,because I search ''partner '' it means (the person that you are married to or having a sexual relationship with )
And i donot understand why you used " claased as poor" because I think "as" usually follows by a noun?
thanks in advance

Dear simon

Is this right?

This table illustrates the different types of households in terms of the percentage of people living in poverty in Australia in 1999.

The comments to this entry are closed.