Can you help correct this graph-based writing task? Please...

[cherry88cn]

The graph and table below give information about water use worldwide and water consumption in two different countries.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.


I am not good at this kind of writing task...I would appreciate the help from you...


The first curves demonstrate three different usage of global water while the table reveals the data about the consumed water and some relevant issues in Brazil and Congo.

We can see immediately from the graph that all three sectors of water usage have grown dramatically. The consumption of water on the farm rose from 500 km3 to about 1000 km3 over the first 50 years(1900 to 1950), whilst the industrial and domestic use relatively much lower and stable during this period. From 1950 on, in the next five decades, all of the three sectors of usage jumped rapidly. Agricultural use reached 3000 km3 in 2000, which was 3 times of the record in 1950. Industrial use in 2000 is more than 1000 km3, twice of domestic consumption at this time.

When it comes to the table, it is obvious Brazil has a larger population (176 million) than Congo(5.2 million), the irrigated land of Brazil is 265 times than Congo. Therefore, the consumed water of every individual is surprisingly different too(359 m3 :8 m3).

To sum up, agricultural use is the largest proportion of water as per this graph and water usage in Brazil is really large because of the vast irrigated land.

[chester_100]

The following points may be helpful:

1. First of all, an introduction won’t hurt:

The graph represents global water consumption from 1900 to 2000. The vertical axis shows the general amount of water consumption in cubic kilometers (mk3). The horizontal axis compares the decades of the 20th century. The graph has been designed to illustrate the global water consumption per 1000 cubic kilometers at ten-year intervals.

****

2. Now, you can comment on the information it represents, making any comparisons you want:

-A great amount of water supplies was used in agriculture, increasing steadily from the commencement of the 20th century to its end- through the whole period.

-Global water consumption amounted to more that 3,000 mk3 in the 20th century.

****

3. Your conclusion may be the statement of a fact like the following sentence:

-The larger agricultural land a country has, the greater water reservoirs it will use/need.



Some pints:

-The first curves demonstrate three different usage of global water while the table reveals the data about the consumed water and some relevant issues in Brazil and Congo.

What do you mean by “the first curves”? We can see three curves in the graph, so you have to say “the graph shows….”
By the way, a “curve” illustrates a shape and position.


-Agricultural use reached 3000 km3 in 2000, which was three times as much as the record in 1950. Industrial use in 2000 was more than 1000 km3-twice/two times as much as the domestic consumption today.

-When it comes to the table,
Instead you could say “as for the table”. It sounds better.

-To sum up, agricultural use is the largest proportion of water as per this graph.

I’m not sure what you mean here. You simply could say:
The largest proportion of water was used in agriculture as it is shown in the graph.

Good luck,
Chester,

[Raymott]

Originally Posted by chester_100

-A great amount of water supplies was used in agriculture, increasing steadily from the commencement of the 20th century to its end- through the whole period.

I wouldn't use the term "steadily". A steady increase would be represented by a straight line. This is exponential growth

3. Your conclusion may be the statement of a fact like the following sentence:

-The larger agricultural land a country has, the greater water reservoirs it will use/need.

There's no way you can make that assumption from this data, even if it did turn out to be true. You only have two countries to compare. The difference could be for any number of reasons.

Here are some more unsubstantiated guesses:
South American countries use more water than African countries.
Water consumption per person is directly related to population.
The greater population a country has, the more irrigated land it will have.

And cherry wrote:
and water usage in Brazil is really large because of the vast irrigated land.

This is also a guess. You cannot assume that Brazil's water use follows the same pattern as global water consumption. Brazil is more industrialised than Congo, so perhaps most of their water goes to industry.
You could suggest it as a possible reason, but there is nothing explanatory in these tables. In any event you are asked to describe the data, not explain it. This is very important.

[/quote]

When it comes to the table, it is obvious Brazil has a larger population (176 million) than Congo(5.2 million), the irrigated land of Brazil is 265 times than Congo. Therefore, the consumed water of every individual is surprisingly different too(359 m3 :8 m3).

This is also not logical.
Your facts are right:
1. Brazil has a larger population than Congo.
2. Brazil has more irrigated land than Congo.
But from this, you cannot infer
3. The relative water consumption per person is therefore greater in Brazil. (In fact you've been given fact 3, but you cannot state that it follows from 1. and 2. or from the graphs).

[cherry88cn]

Thank you for your suggestions...It's useful...

[cherry88cn]

Actually, this task confused me because I cannot find any obvious connection betweem these 2 graphs. But as they are appearing in one tast, presumably, there must be some connection and I may need to describe...So I guess I need to say something about it, but I am not sure what to convey...
Therefore, Raymott, do you mean the conclusion is still not necessary?

[chester_100]

Originally Posted by Raymott

-A great amount of water supplies was used in agriculture, increasing steadily from the commencement of the 20th century to its end- through the whole period.

I wouldn't use the term "steadily". A steady increase would be represented by a straight line. This is exponential growth.

I do admit that the curve is not utterly steady, but I assure you it’s a “steady increase” with 90% accuracy, based on the
samples I have.

Ch

[chester_100]

Raymott:
There's no way you can make that assumption from this data, even if it did turn out to be true. You only have two countries to compare. The difference could be for any number of reasons.


1. Well, apart from any scientific evidence, common sense wouldn’t rule out that surmise. It’s something believable and incredibly simple:

1. A flower needs one glass of water a day (or just any amount of water necessary for its survival).
2. I have three flowers, each of which is put in a separate vase.
3. Totally I’ll need three glasses of water (or just any amount of water necessary for one flower’s survival multiplied by 3) to water them all.
4. If I had two flowers, I’d need just two glasses of water. So:
5. The more flowers one possesses, the more amount of water he/she will need.

2. If you want more scientifically supported evidence, take a look at the following excerpt from MICROSOFT ENCARTA:

“An acre of land under irrigation requires much more water on average than an acre of land developed for housing, a shopping center, or other urban purposes. Thus, when agricultural land on the fringes of major urban areas is converted to housing or commercial use, there is actually an increase in the amount of water available for domestic use.”

So, agricultural land does need more water and this fact forms a valid proposition in my sentence.

3. The person posting the question is responsible for the validity, reliability, accuracy, precision, and the philosophy lying behind the post. We don’t know; working on the data may be an assignment for the sender, and working outside of its framework may not be expedient.

And you said “you only have two countries to compare”, but my estimation was mostly based on the graph which represents a global growth and doesn’t have much to do with the table.
By the way, the data leads us to conclude what I concluded. We do need research to prove that, yet we have to work within the range that the data has defined. Based on the data, my surmise is absolutely right.


CH

[chester_100]

Quote:
When it comes to the table, it is obvious Brazil has a larger population (176 million) than Congo(5.2 million), the irrigated land of Brazil is 265 times than Congo. Therefore, the consumed water of every individual is surprisingly different too(359 m3 :8 m3).

This is also not logical.
Your facts are right:
1. Brazil has a larger population than Congo.
2. Brazil has more irrigated land than Congo.
But from this, you cannot infer
3. The relative water consumption per person is therefore greater in Brazil. (In fact you've been given fact 3, but you cannot state that it follows from 1. and 2. or from the graphs).

****

-The above argument is exactly the sort a teacher (or a person trying to help) should be concerned with. As you have noted, it’s logical, not scientific. When the scientific sounding assertions are so gross that they are not believable, however, it would be a good idea to point them out.


Thanks a lot, Raymott,
Good day,

[Raymott]

Originally Posted by cherry88cn

Actually, this task confused me because I cannot find any obvious connection betweem these 2 graphs. But as they are appearing in one tast, presumably, there must be some connection and I may need to describe...So I guess I need to say something about it, but I am not sure what to convey...
Therefore, Raymott, do you mean the conclusion is still not necessary?

If you want to make an explanation, you can say "It is possible that ..." One of the causes for this could be ..."
You do not state: "This is because..." if there is no evidence for it.

[Raymott]

I do admit that the curve is not utterly steady, but I assure you it’s a “steady increase” with 90% accuracy, based on the

samples I have.

"Steady increase" is not an English term that I would use to describe these graphs.