Sample answer：
The line chart details the percentages for females working in various countries around
the world from ages of 15 to 64. Looking from a general perspective, it is readily
apparent that employment rose in all nations except for Iceland, where there was a
marginal decline, and Turkey, where the percentage was stable overall. The three
more developed nations also generally registered higher employment percentages
compared to Chile and Turkey.
In 2003, there were approximately 10% differences in the figures for female
employment in Iceland, Canada and Germany at 81%, 69%, and 59%, respectively.
Over the next 4 years, these percentages were generally stable before Canadian
employment began to diverge upwards to finish at 65% in 2009 and Iceland
experienced the inverse trend dropping to end at 78%. Canada was more stable and
concluded the period at precisely 70%.
In contrast, Chile and Turkeys’ female employment ratios were lower throughout with
the former beginning at 35% and plateauing just above 40% for the remainder of the
surveyed timeframe. The latter, in comparison, fell from 25% in 2003 to near 20% in
the middle years of the period, before a full recovery in the final year.
The line graph describes the change of the percentage of women aged 15-64 in
employment from 2003 to 2009. 这 句 ok ， 可 以 加 上 in 5 countries （ Iceland, Canada,
Germany, Chile and Turkey）.
Overall, while the employment rate of three countries in the graph was increasing,
Turkey remained relatively stable, and Iceland witnessed a mild decline. 这句话缺少重点，可以
改 成 :Except Turkey and Iceland, the employment rate in other 3 countries all
experienced slight increase.
Moreover, values in the three more developed country are substantially higher than
the one of Chile and Turkey through out the period. 这句没问题
In 2003, the Iceland was in the leading place, having more than 80% of women in
employment.
The second and the third place were Canada and Germany respectively. 这两句可以合起来，改成，
followed by that in Canada (70%) and Germany(60%)
The gaps between the first three places are even, around 10% behind the higher
place. 这句话没重复了上面的，就没有必要了。有图中给出的数据就不用自己算差值了，Task 1 是呈现图中的内容，不需要加主观加工和分析
By contrast, Chile deviated from these three countries significantly since the rate
of employment was 35%. Finally, the last counrty was Turkey, who only had 25%.这两
句有点机械性的罗列了.可以合起来：In contrast, the percentage in Chile and Turkey started relatively
low, commencing at 35% and 25% respectively.
In 2009, the ranking of the countries according to the employment rate did not
change. However, the variability of the data decreased. 线图的重点应该是趋势，但是这边描述的重点是差异
This is because Iceland, as the leading country, had experienced a major decline of
around 4 percent from 2007 to 2009, and Turkey, despite the downward fluctuation,
recovered back to a constant level of 25%.
不需要加 because 或者 since，我们只是客观的呈现图中的信息，前后并不必然成因果关系。 Again，不需要自己算加减法（e.g.下降了约 4%）这句
描写了：冰岛下降+土耳其不变
Apart from the extreme values, Germany and Chile’s employment both increased
by five percent. However, hardly did Canada see a major change, since the value
only rose one percent. Again，不需要自己算加减法（e.g.上升了约 5%，上升了 1%）这句描写了：德国上升+智利上升+加拿大上升。
但这一段和 overview 的第一句对应不起来（Overall, while the employment rate of three countries in
the graph was increasing, Turkey remained relatively stable, and Iceland witnessed
a mild decline. ）
1. 修改一下语法错误，看能改出来多少
2. 改写一下表达不清楚的地方
How to structure your answer
Introduction
You simply need to paraphrase the input language in the question. Give a general description of what the
charts show (e.g., what type of data it is, where it occurs or occurred, plus the time period).
Overview
Have a sentence to summaries the main differences or changes. There is no need to include figures here or
mention every category
Body Paragraphs
Two body paragraphs should be enough to highlight, describe and compare the key features. Look at the
trends and try to categories your two body paragraphs clearly. Use figures if they are presented
Is this a good paragraph or not?
In 2012, Brisbane had the lowest figure of 30% but rose steadily to 32% in 2014. After that, there was a
steep rise to just over 60% in 2018 before it flattened slightly to reach approximately 71% two years later.
Meanwhile, Sydney started with 45% in 2012 and climbed slowly to reach 50% in 2016. Then, there was a
steeper rise and it was 61% in 2020.
Is this a good paragraph or not?
Looking at the two cities with an increasing trend, in 2012, Brisbane had the lowest figure among the 4
cities, with just 30% of cars being manually driven, approximately 15% less than Sydney. While both urban
centers had a growing tendency from this point, it was Brisbane which had the more sizeable growth after
2016, reaching just over 70% in 2020. Sydney, on the other hand, grew only marginally and also had a high
point in the same year with a ratio of 10% less than the former city.
