Task 1
- chart.jpg (144.28 KiB) Viewed 1000 times
My answer to task 1 is
The pie chart shows the water consumption of distinguished client categories in Australia in 2004, while the bar chart illustrates the detailed purposes of water consumption in Australian residential in the same year.
In the pie chart, it is obvious that the residential water consumption constitutes the highest proportion the water usages of all parties, counting to 70% totally with 57% for the house and 13% for the apartment. However, the government used the least water in that year, with the figure for 6%. Between them, the industry consumed almost the same quantity of water as the business did, accounting for 11% and 10% respectively.
In the second bar chart, there are strong evidences that most families consumed their water by taking shower, watering garden and doing laundries, which constitute 28%, 27% and 20% of the entire household water consumption. In contrast, only 10 percent of the water was used in the kitchen room, which is followed by a slightly higher usage of water in the toilet, showing 15% of the overall water usage.
In conclusion, combining the two charts, we can draw the conclusion that in 2004, most water was consumed by Australia residence, and meanwhile, these households largely used the water in their bathrooms and gardens.
Task 2
Topic: Because of traffic and housing problems in the cities，the government encourages business move to the rural area. Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
My answer:
As the development continues in the urban areas of cities, there exist over-population and road jam issues in these city centers. To effectively solve these problems, many people propose that business should be encouraged by the government to resettle in the countryside. As a result, this proposal would bring both benefits and drawbacks which we have to address.
From the positive perspective, the resettlement will benefit the already taxed situation in the urban from different aspects. First, through moving to the rural areas, companies could severely cut their rent because the distinguished real estate price between urban and suburb areas. For example, a software development company, the business of which relies much less on the urban facilities rather than the software engineers and a fast internet connection, would gain the competition advantage by using these saved rental expend to hire more intelligent employees. Additional, as the fact that numerous citizens choose to live in the suburbs, these companies that residing outside the city will find it is easier to recruit new employees for the reason that these employees would not need to travel a long distance to work.
On the other hand, if companies resettle their working place in to the rural locations, it also produces countable negative effects, leading to a decreased business profit and government expense. First of all, if the business involves a large demand of connecting to other business partners, this movement would burden the company because countless money and time would be wasted by the travel expense of their agencies. Second, from the perspective of the city government, this moving to the rural recommendation would expense the management cost of the city council. For instance, to effectively monitor and investigate these companies in the rural areas, the city governor has to build new delegate departments in these remote areas, which surely including the building construction and officer recruit.
In conclusion, this moving to the rural policy may influence the pattern of business as well as the government. However, on account of the partial drawbacks are discussed above, I believe that if we could try to avoid these disadvantages, the overall benefit could outweigh the disadvantages as most of our cities are being expended to adapt to a larger economic.