+1

The table shows forested land in millions of hectares in different parts of the world. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. You should spend about 20 minutes on this task.

The table gives information referring the area of forests measured in hectares of various places in the world over the fifteen- year period from 1990 to 2005. Generally speaking, over the period as a whole, Europe had the largest forest area (1001 ha in 2005) associated with an obvious upward trend, in contrast to Oceania's figure (197 ha in 2005 with a slight downward trend).

It is clear from the table that Europe and Asia were the only places of which the forest area was increasing. The figure of Europe came out first, 989 ha in the beginning of the period and maintained its position until 2005 (1001 ha). However, Asia witnessed a rise at a slower pace from 576 ha to 584 ha in 2005, only half of that of European.

To turn to the remaining regions, Africa and South America experienced a more significant decrease in comparison to Oceania and North America. Grouping Africa and South America together, it can be seen from the table that the South American figure was ahead of the African figure by a large margin throughout the period, 882 ha for the former versus 691 ha for the latter. North American figure went down insignificantly by 3 ha in 2000, and stood at that level until the end of the period, as opposed to the Oceania's figure which hovering around 198 ha from 1990 to 2005.


+1

The table gives information referring the area of forests measured in hectares of various places in the world over the fifteen- year period from 1990 to 2005. Generally speaking, over the period as a whole, Europe had the largest forest area (1001 ha in 2005) and it was associated with an obvious upward trend, in contrast to Oceania's figure (197 ha in 2005 with a slight downward trend).

It is clear from the table that Europe and Asia were the only places of which where the forest area was increasing. The figure of Europe came out first, 989 ha in the beginning of the period and maintained its position until 2005 (1001 ha). However, Asia witnessed a rise at a slower pace from 576 ha to 584 ha in 2005, only half of that of Europe European.

To turn to the remaining regions, Africa and South America experienced a more significant decrease in comparison to Oceania and North America. Grouping Africa and South America together, Dangling modifier. Rephrase) it can be seen from the table that the South American figure was ahead of the African figure by a large margin throughout the period, 882 ha for the former versus 691 ha for the latter. The forest area of North American figure went down insignificantly by 3 ha in 2000, and stood at that level until the end of the period, as opposed to the Oceania's figure that of Oceania which hovering (wrong form) around 198 ha from 1990 to 2005.

Comments  
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?

Thanks ! However, I would like to ask that can I use the word "South American" as an adjective in the phrase "the South American figure"? (Similarly for the case of "North American figure")

Trà Trầncan I use the word "South American" as an adjective in the phrase "the South American figure"?

No. It is unnatural. "Figure" is not a good word in the context of data or numbers in tables. Use: the data from South America.


"Figure" is used to mean "the numerical results of a calculation or a computational process." It is almost always used in the plural, even when there is a single number. "Figure" in the singular can mean many different things: a graphic in an article or book, the shape of a human (woman's) body, a small sculpture, or a painting of a human on a vase.

For example:

Sales figures for the third quarter 2017 are up 20% over those of the same period last year.
The green party's popularity has plummeted to single figures in opinion polls.

"Sales figures" were calculated from the company's database; the value of the party's popularity was calculated based on the polling data.

The provided table gives information on the number of the millions of hectares of forest area in six different continents in the world during a period of fifteen years starting from 1990 to 2005.
It can be seen from the graph that there was a downward trend in the millions of treed region's hectares in Africa, Oceania, North and South America, while Asia and Europe increased moderately. Moreover, the figure for Europe was the highest among the six particular continents over the period investigated.
In 1990, forested region in Europe was 989 million hectares, followed by that of Asia which was 576 million. Then, Europe witnessed a minimal rise of 12 million hectares of forested land and in 2005, the treed region's hectares reached 1001million. At the time, a marginal growth was experienced in the figure for Asia.
However, Europe's biggest rival, South America was 946 million hectares of forested land, 749 million higher than Africa in 1999. In 2005, the figure for both South America and Africa decreased sharply to 882 and 691 million hectares respectively.The hectares of forested land in North America was 708 million, over three times as much as Oceania and in 2005, both North America and Oceania saw a slight decline to 705 and 197 million in turn.

Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.

The data that 5 continents used for foresting is reported in 1990, 2000 and 2005, respectively.

It is clear that Europe and America spent much more land on foresting than other continents. Among all continents, Oceania spent least forested areas in all three reported years.

American countries spent 1654 millions of hectares in total on forested land in 1990, while European ones spent less than approximately 45%, about 989 million. However, while Europe slightly increased to 998 and 1001 in 2000 and 2005, respectively, America significantly reduced their forested land 45 and 22 millions of hectares in the corresponding years. The reduction was almost from countries in South America, as North America counterparts maintained their forested land at 705 millions of hectares in both 2000 and 2005.

Australia and New Zealand used only 199 millions of hectares in 1990 for foresting. Compared with Africa where 40 and 18 millions of hectares were cut down in 2000 and 2005, only 1 million hectare was deducted in Oceania in respected years. Even Asia continent deducted 6 millions of hectares to 570, it eventually increased up to 584 by the end of 2005.

anonymousThe data that 5 continents used for foresting is reported in 1990, 2000 and 2005, respectively.

If you are submitting an essay for review, do not tag it on someone else's thread.
Register with a username, and submit it separately. If you are writing Task 1, attach an image of the figure you are writing about, or a link to the figure.

Also, include the topic instructions in the body of the message.

In this table is obtain some information for forest spaces in differences continents on specific period.


There are four continents are decline from 199 to 2005. On the other hand Euope is partiaually increasing, while North America decrease amount 3 ‘million' hectares, but in 2005 wsa stability and wasn't neither downward nor upward.


Fothermore, In Oceania had bit decreaing, howevere in South America and Asia had huge fall in 2000 it is about 40 'million' hectares and in 2005 had haft which losses in 2000. So, I think Oceania will an increase in a coming years, also in Europes.


Evantiually, That is not enuogth information to expect if may there are high or less declines.

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies