# Can You Give Me Some Feedback On My Writing Task 1?

•  3

The first line graph compares differences in the number of households with electrical appliances and the second one demonstrates the amount of time people spent on doing housework each week from 1920 to 2019.

Overall, there was an upward trend in the use of washing machines, refrigerators and vacuum cleaners, and the possession of refrigerators rose at the highest rate. Consequently, the number of hours spent on household chores decreased significantly during this period.

In 1920, forty percent of the households owned washing machines, which was 10% higher than the ownership of vacuum cleaner. After 60 years, the number of families having refrigerators and vacuum cleaners rose sharply to 100% and 80% respectively. While vacuum cleaners were used in roughly 65% of the households, all families owned two other electrical appliances in 2019.

It is clear that people spent 50 hours each week on doing housework in 1920. Between 1920 and 1980 the number of hours spent on household chores saw a drop of 30 hours. In 2019, with the use of electrical appliances people only spent 10 hours per week on housework. (183)

Thank you for helping me!

The first line graph compares differences (There are no differences on this plot.) in the number (wrong word. Numbers are values such as 54,821,453 or 429 or 1,483) of households with electrical appliances and the second one (Write a new sentence) demonstrates (very poor word choice) the amount of time people spent on doing housework each week from 1920 to 2019. (You wrote that there is one curve - households with electrical appliances - on the first graph. That is not true. You did not describe it very well)

Overall, there was an upward trend in the use percentage of homes with washing machines, refrigerators and vacuum cleaners, and the possession those with refrigerators rose at the highest rate. Consequently, (Do not draw conclusions or inferences in Task 1. Just describe the information without commentary.) the number of hours spent on household chores decreased significantly during this period.

In 1920, forty percent of the households owned washing machines, which was 10% higher than the ownership of vacuum cleaner. (wrong form) After 60 years, the number of families having refrigerators and vacuum cleaners rose sharply to 100% and 80% respectively. While vacuum cleaners were used in roughly 65% of the households, all families owned two other electrical appliances in 2019.

It is clear that (Delete. Read my advice) people spent 50 hours each week on doing housework in 1920. Between 1920 and 1980 the number of hours spent on household chores saw (wrong word. Read my advice.) a dropped of 30 hours. In 2019, with the use of electrical appliances (Do not draw conclusions or inferences in Task 1. Just describe the information without commentary.)people only spent 10 hours per week on housework.

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies

Sample essay:

The first line graph plots the percentage of homes which had a labor-saving electrical appliance between 1920 and 2019. Three appliances are shown: refrigerator, vacuum cleaner and washing machine. The second line graph plots the average amount of time each family spent weekly on common household chores during the same period.

Overall, a steadily increasing proportion of families owned these appliances, especially vacuum cleaners and refrigerators. There is a very strong negative correlation between the percentage of homes with a refrigerator and the number of hours devoted to household chores.

In detail, possessing a refrigerator started at nearly none in 1920, but one was present in every home by 1980. About three in ten had a vacuum cleaner in 1920, and this also increased to every home by 2000. Washing machines started out with the highest value, 40%, in 1920. However, it did not reach 100%, but only three-quarters of the homes in 2019. As more households acquired these appliances, less and less time was spent on chores. The number of hours per week dropped by 80%, from 50 to 10 hours per week.

it's so helpful , many thanks:>

flymetothemoon21

it's so helpful , many thanks:>

Did you understand this sentence and why it is not a deduction or conclusion, but an observation of the information on the two graphs?

`There is a very strong negative correlation between the percentage of homes with a refrigerator and the number of hours devoted to household chores.`
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?

I've been thinking about it for nearly 2 hours since I read your question and I don't think that I can understand this sentence thoroughly... I mean why is it not considered as a deduction or conclusion but an observation ?

flymetothemoon21

I've been thinking about it for nearly 2 hours since I read your question and I don't think that I can understand this sentence thoroughly... I mean why is it not considered as a deduction or conclusion but an observation ?

The word "correlation" is a purely mathematical term. Two curves are positively correlated if they tend to move in exactly the same way. They are negatively correlated if they move in opposite ways. The correlation coefficient is a mathematical calculation that ranges from +1 (perfect positive) to -1 (perfect negative.) These two curves have a negative correlation coefficient of -0.96.

These two curves are positively correlated.

The correlation just is a measure of "sameness of the patterns." It says nothing about A causing B or B causing A. That statement is a conclusion or inference.

For example, this graph shows a near perfect positive correlation between the number of children with autism and the sales of organic food. It is a conclusion to write that eating organic food causes autism!

In this second example, the number of people who kill themselves has a positive correlation with the US budget for science and space technologies.

It is a conclusion to write that putting more money this category causes people to commit suicide.

In these two examples, the correlation is an accurate observation, but the conclusion is utterly fallacious.

If you write " the use of appliances reduces the hours spent on chores", that is a conclusion. It implies that one is causing the other.
If you write "as the percentage of households with appliances increases, the hours spent on chores decreases", that is an observation of the data.

The difference is small, but significant. Many people are fooled by making false conclusions from obvious correlations.