« Happy Christmas! | Main | IELTS Speaking: work or study? »

December 27, 2018


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


I think number 4 is correct. I know why the other three are wrong but i can only be able to explain it in my own language. Sorry.

It is wrong to use the name of country to represent the number of wheat exported.

1.In 1985, Canada was about 19 million tonnes of wheat exports.

2.In 1985, Australia was the lowest, at 15 million tonnes of wheat exports.

3.Between 1987 and 1988, Canada increased by about 5 million tonnes of wheat exports.


3 is correct one

4 is correct i am pretty sure, i have read the comments.

Number 4 is correct because we talk about wheat not countries

ı think that correct sentence is third sentence

1,In 1985, Canada was about 19 million tonnes of wheat exports.
2.In 1985, Australia was the lowest, at 15 million tonnes of wheat exports.
3 ,In 1988, Canada started to decrease about more then 5 millons of tonnes of wheat export.

4. is correct.

I believe the correct answer is number 4 because the graph pertains to the wheat export and not the country.

I think the fourth sentence in these sentences is the only one correct.

We can see that the grammar of the first three sentences is correct, but those sentences are describing numbers not complete enough. In the first sentence, the mistake is that the lack of objects(wheat exports)to describes the data. The second sentence of the error is that need to add the time point at which the data is written and supplement comparison objects. The blunder in the third sentence is that lack to point out the increased quantity is counted to from which time point.

Although I think the final phrase which of those are correct, I prefer to change to 'Australia exported about 11 million tonnes of wheat in 1990, while Canada and Europen community, just under 20 million tonnes and at nearly 21 million tonnes respectively.’ Welcome advice If my answer is wrong or has better writing suggestions.

1. In 1985, Canada was about 19 million tonnes of wheat exports.

2. In 1985, Australia was lower at 15 million tonnes of wheat exports.

3. In 1988, Canada was increased by about 5 million tonnes of wheat exports.

4. correct

First 3 of of the sentences are incorrect because they don't make sense, we can't say country increases or becomes lower/higher. And of course the last sentence is correct.

Dear All,
1-In 1985,about 19 million tonnes of wheat exported from Canada.
2-(In 1985,) Australia was the lowest, at 15 million tonnes of wheat exports.
3- By 1988, Canada had increased/risen by 5 million tonnes of wheat exports.
4- Correct

The first sentence means that Canada as a land mass weighed about 19 million tonnes.
[This would either be considered incoherent , nonsensical, or irrelevant to the task, so dropping the score accordingly.]

The second sentence means that Australia, as a country, was lower. One might possibly describe the Netherlands as lower than Switzerland, meaning that the average height above sea level was lower. [Again this would drag the score for Task Achievement down, and possibly Coherence too.]

The third sentence means the country itself expanded, that is, increased in land mass.

Re your version of the fourth sentence:
Australia exported about 11 million tonnes of wheat in 1990, while Canada and the European Union exported just under 20 million tonnes and nearly 21 million tonnes respectively.
while Canada exported just under twenty million tonnes, and the EU nearly twenty-one.

In 1985 Canada exported about 19 million tonns of wheat.
In the same year Australia exported less than 15 million tonns of wheat.

In 1985, Canada exported about 19 million tonnes of wheat.

In 1985, Australia was the lowest of wheat exports, at 15 million tonnes.

By 1988, Canada had increased by about 5 million tonnes of wheat exports.

4 - correct.


- I think the big mistake is the verb, specially in the sentence 1 and 2.
It can be right if we use the subject “there, it” in this sentence.

- In the sentence 3, it can be right if we describe a trend, not specific year ( between 1986 and 1988).

The fourth one is correct
1st&2nd: wrong subject, not Canada/Australia but Canada/Australia wheat exports
3rd: It should be a change in wheat export number in a period of time, not a specific year

4 is correct

4 is correct.
The other three statements do not address the visuals.

In my opinion, i think 4th is correct. remaining sentences are not clear

The correct sentence is number 4.

1.This sentence is not complete when describing the number (19 million of tonnes of wheat exports).

2.Year is missing (1987)?

3.In 1988, Canada increased by about 5 million tonnes of wheat exports (increased exports from 22 millions of tonnes of wheat in 1987 to 25 million of tonnes).

Overall, it is difficult to follow the information when these three sentences describe the number (volume) of wheat and year.

Hello, I just ask a grammatical question which often makes me confused. I give 3 sentences below.

1. The Chronicle has pretensions to being a serious newspaper.
2. It is key to writing fluently and communicating effectively.
3. Within this area, it is key to consider legal structures.

My question is that, in these sentences, following the word "to", why sometimes is a gerund being used, and other times a base verb?

In my opinion, the use of a base verb following the word "to" in all these sentences should be right, am I right?

For example,
it's easy to understand......
I have the courage to finish the task.
It's definitely necessary to get it.

so when is it right to use a gerund after the word "to"? I often see the sentence "it is key to doing.."
so is the sentence "it's key to do sth" right?

1 In 1985, Canada saw wheat exports at 19 million tonnes.
2 Australia stood at 15 million tonnes of wheat exports or
Australia's wheat exports were the least, at about 15 million tonnes.
3 In 1988, Canada raised by about 5 million tonnes of wheat exports.
4 Australia exported about 11 million tonnes of wheat in 1990

@ he li
'The way to differentiate between the two is to see if you can put a noun after the word "to" in the sentence you are writing. If you can put a noun after "to" and the sentence makes sense, then you should use a gerund (VERB+ing).'

Mother Teresa devoted her life to service (noun).
Mother Teresa devoted her life to the poor (noun).


The above should explain the last three examples quoted (it's easy ... ).

1) I would prefer "pretensions to being", although there are examples of using the infinitive on Google Books.

2) "It is key to" is a quite modern phrase, using "key" as an adjective, in the sense of "essential", and is followed by both infinitive or gerund on Google Books.
If we look at the usage of "is essential to" it becomes evident that either an infinitive or gerund can follow this phrase. Looking at the sentences (both are correct):
a) It is essential to understand the system.
b) It is essential to our understanding of the system.
There is a small difference in meaning here: the first means "we must understand the system", and the second means "it the a key/central/fundamental idea without which we cannot understand the system".

"It is key to writing... " means that it is an absolute prerequisite (a sine qua non).
"It is key to write ...." would mean we must do it. (I could find only one instance of this phrase.)




Follow my opinion, the fourth sentence is correct. The first sentence said that In 1985, Canada was about 19 million tonnes but we do not know what was mentioned. it can be fixed that "in 1985, Canada exported about 19 million tonnes wheat".The second sentence will be right if it is the tag part of the first sentence. Unfortunity, Simon didnt let it there, so it is wrong :)). Last incorrect sentence is third. When you said you are higher, you must give a standard. You can not better "nothing". So just need to say that " In 1988, Canada increased by about 5 million tonnes of wheat exports than in 1987".

Please, I just learn to write ielts essay. Thank you very much !!

I think 4 no. is correct . Sir , actually l filled my exam at 19 January but my speaking is very weak if you give me some tips related to speaking as well as also reading which will improve my permonce in these modules. I am thankful of you if you pay attention on this aspect

I think number 4 is the correct answer, others were not clear information about years or what was exported by countries.

1. In 1985, around 19 million tonnes of wheat was exported from Canada.
2. Australia held the lowest number of wheat for export, with figures between 11 and 16 million tonnes.
3. 1988 witnessed the largest increase in wheat exports by approximately 5 million tonnes in Canada.


2) 'held the lowest number' occurs only once on Google Books, in the context of library holdings. Libraries may "hold" books, but countries cannot hold a number. -> Wheat exports from Australia were lower, trending downwards from fifteen million tonnes in 1985/6 to about twelve million tonnes by the end of the period surveyed.


It is unwise to use anthropomorphic verbs such as 'witnessed' in Task 1.

4 is correct grammatically

The line graph compares the amount of wheat exported in three different countries in the five-year-period from 1985 to 1990.

It can be seen that overall Canada and European had an increase in the amount of wheat export, while there was a decrease in that amount of Australia. Australia was also the country exporting the lowest amount of wheat, whereas Canada exporting the highest.

By 1985, Canada had already exported just under 20 million tonnes of wheat, followed by the European Community had about 18 million tonnes, and Australia had 15 million tonnes. In the next three years, the amount of export wheat in Canada increased dramatically to its peak of 25 million tonnes, which was twice as many as in Australia. Similarly, there was also an increase in European countries to 15 million tonnes.

In the last two years, European communities continued to have a rise in the amount of wheat exported and ended the period at its highest point around more than 20 million tonnes, whereas, in Canada and Australia, that amount decreased to approximately 19 million tonnes and 11 million tonnes respectively in 1990.


To me, it looks as if at the end of the period Canadian exports were the same, not increased. Also, you have rightly mentioned increases, but not stated when.

The marking schema in fact requires a trend statement such as:

The overall trend for Australia was downward, and for the European Community upward, while after some fluctuations the end point for Canada was almost the same.

The second sentence in your overview is just not true. The European Community was exporting the highest quantity at the end of the period.

"By 1985, Canada had already exported ": 'by' implies a period up to 1985, when did the period start?

For Canada, we could use either 'ranged from' and quote the bottom and top figures, or 'fluctuated from'.

No 4 is the correct answer because it is a complete sentence : Subject + verb and contains what, when why and how, while no 1 we don’t know what is the sentence talking about, no 2 is a comparing sentence , lower than ??? and no 3 I’m not sure , but I don’t feel right when I read, maybe ‘increase by without about.


Of course, sentence 4 is the correct one.

You can't say "Canada was 19 million" or "Australia was lower" or "Canada increased". We need to use a different subject in each of those sentences.

Thank you for helping me correct the essay! It's really helpful!

1. In 1985, Canada was about 19 million tones of wheat exports
2. Australia was the lowest, at 15 million tones of wheat exports
3. Since 1988, Canada had dramatically decreased in exporting wheat
4. Correct



I’m afraid it’s not me :-) it’s Oleg .We’ve have got the similar name 😁


Hi simon, and all

I've noticed that in some line graphs, for example, the time give in that graph is between 1980 and 2012, and it is paraphrased to over a period of 32 years. But in another graph, 'between 2001 and 2010' is paraphrased to over the 10-year period.

The question is in the second case, isn't it should be 9-year period instead of 10-?

Kaixia Chen

Yes, this is a good question. In this particular example re wheat exports, it looks like the figure for 1985 is the sum of all wheat exports for the twelve months ending December 31. So we are looking at the annual totals for six successive years. That could be properly described as a six-year period.

If we look at the fast-food bar chart here:
then we do not have figures for all the years; we only have a snapshot at the end of three particular years, so I would hesitate to use a phrase like "over a ten-year period", as we have no information on the intervening years.

Comparing this with annual phone expenditures here:
In this line graph there is data for distinct years, so a "ten-year" period would be appropriate.

This one shows averages, so we have data for a twelve-year period. If it showed just the end-of-year prices, then it would only be an eleven-year period.

The bars for age 30-39 represent a ten-year grouping.


1- In 1985, Wheat export of Canada was about 19 million tonnes.
2- Wheat export of Australia was 15 million tonnes in 1985.
3- By 1988, wheat export of Canada had increased 5 million tonnes of

4- Australia exported about 11 million tonnes of wheat in 1990.



Hi simon can we describe graph line according to years or countries or goods(whatever given)?

The comments to this entry are closed.