Câu hỏi:

10/01/2025 552

The graph below shows the average time spent by four car manufacturers to produce vehicles at their US factories from 1998 to 2005.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. Write at least 150 words.

Quảng cáo

Trả lời:

verified
Giải bởi Vietjack
The graph below shows the average time spent by four car manufacturers to produce vehicles at their US factories from 1998 to 2005. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. Write at least 150 words. (ảnh 1)

Sample 1:

The provided line graph illustrates how much time on average 4 different automobile manufacturers spent producing vehicles at their US factories over a 7-year period, starting from 1998.

Overall, it is evident that all brands experienced downward trends in production time. Notably, it took Honda less time than other manufacturing companies to produce vehicles during the entire period.

In terms of General Motor, the average production time started at 32 hours in the first year, followed by a constant drop to finish at 22 hours after 7 years. Likewise, it took Ford 28 hours to produce vehicles in 1998, after which the hours rose gradually till the early 2000s, when it outstriped General Motor's average time to become the slowest automobile producer during the next 4 years. However, in 2005, the figure went down to below 22 hours, giving back the lead to General Motor.

Both Toyota and Honda initially spent 22 hours on average on car production. However, while the figure for Toyota slightly increased in the next year, that of Honda experienced an opposite trend, with approximately 23 and precisely 20 hours, respectively. Toyota's average hours went on to fluctuate before finishing at 20 in 2005. Meanwhile, the time Honda spent on car manufacturing saw a sharp increase reaching its peak at 24 hours in 2002, coinciding with Toyota's highest point. The figure then declined to 20 hours in the last year, paralleling Toyota's hours in the same period.

Sample 2:

The line graph illustrates the average amount of time to produce new cars of 4 companies, namely General Motor, Ford, Toyota, and Honda at their factories in the US between 1998 and 2005. Overall, it can be seen that it became faster for these companies to produce new cars over the given period.

In 1998, General Motor spent about 32 hours on average manufacturing a new car, which was also the longest of all this year. In the next 7 years, there was a continuous downward trend in this number, reaching at roughly 22 hours. During this time, the figure for Ford surpassed General Motor in 1999, rising from nearly 28 hours to barely 31 hours in 2001. After that, it went down remarkably by almost 10 hours in the end.

On the other hand, the figures for Toyota and Honda were quite similar at 22 hours in the beginning. Both of them also witnessed a significant fluctuation in the following years. However, in the end, they both dropped to merely 20 hours for their car production.

Sample 3:

The line graph illustrates the average number of hours required by four automobile manufacturers- General Motors, Ford, Toyota, and Honda-to produce vehicles at their factories in the United States from 1998 to 2005.

Overall, there was a noticeable decline in production time across all four manufacturers over the period. Honda consistently had the shortest production time, while Ford showed significant fluctuations, particularly in the early 2000s. By 2005, the production times of all manufacturers had converged to around 20-22 hours per vehicle.

General Motors began the period with the highest production time, taking approximately 32 hours to manufacture a vehicle in 1998. This time decreased steadily, ending at around 22 hours in 2005, showing consistent improvement. In contrast, Ford initially took 28 hours per vehicle in 1998. However, instead of improving, Ford's production time increased, peaking at 34 hours in 2001, making it the least efficient manufacturer during this period. After this peak, Ford made significant strides in reducing its production time, bringing it down to just under 22 hours by 2005, closely aligning with General Motors.

Toyota and Honda both started with a similar production time of around 22 hours per vehicle in 1998. Honda's production time dropped slightly to 20 hours by 1999, making it the most efficient manufacturer at that point. However, Honda's efficiency fluctuated, with production time rising sharply to 24 hours in 2002 before decreasing back to 20 hours by 2005. Toyota, on the other hand, saw a slight increase in production time to 23 hours in 1999 but maintained a relatively stable production time, fluctuating only slightly before finally reducing to 20 hours by 2005. Both companies demonstrated a trend towards greater efficiency, with their production times converging by the end of the period.

Sample 4:

The graph provides information about the average time taken by four major car corporations to manufacture vehicles at their American factories over the course of seven years.

Overall, the average amount of time spent by the four different brands experienced fluctuating decreases during the course of the period. Additionally, General Motors went through the best improvement regarding production time.

The American automakers, General Motors and Ford, began the period with longer manufacturing schedules - 32 and 28 hours per vehicle, respectively. Both demonstrated a declining tendency in the amount of time needed to produce an automobile, with a more noticeable decrease at General Motors. Ford reduced its production time to slightly above 20 hours per vehicle by 2005, while General Motors had almost halved its time to about 22 hours.

Japanese producers Toyota and Honda started with considerably lower manufacturing times. Toyota began at slightly below 22 hours per vehicle in 1998, and by 2005, it diminished the time to approximately 20 hours. Honda started and ended similarly to Toyota, beginning at above 22 hours and further increasing its effectiveness to 20 hours by 2005.

Sample 5:

The line graph compares the changes in the average hours needed to manufacture a vehicle by four companies – General Motor, Ford, Toyota and Honda – at their producing sites in the US between 1998 and 2005.

Overall, while the two Japanese car companies produced vehicles more quickly in general, the two US manufacturers had narrowed the gap remarkably.

It is clear that GM had successfully improved their productivity, with the average time reducing from 32 hours per vehicle to 22 hours during the given period, although the figure remained the highest among the four producers in the first two years. In Ford’s factories, there was an initial increase in the figure from 28 hours to over 30 until 2001, after which the factories started to achieve higher efficiency. By 2005, the time needed to produce a car had descended to just 21 hours.

In terms of Toyota and Honda, both manufacturers kept their average production time at a low level between 20 and 24 hours per car, maintaining higher productivity than the other two competitors. Despite wild fluctuations throughout the whole period, factories of both Toyota and Honda managed to slightly reduce the average time.

Sample 6:

The line graph illustrates the average time spent by four car manufacturers - General Motors, Ford, Toyota, and Honda - in producing vehicles at their factories in the United States from 1998 to 2005.

Overall, the time required for car production at all four companies showed a downward trend, with Toyota and Honda achieving the lowest production hours by the end of the period. Meanwhile, American manufacturers General Motors and Ford started with higher production times but managed to reduce them significantly.

In 1998, General Motors had the longest production time at approximately 32 hours, followed closely by Ford with around 30 hours. However, both companies saw a steady decline over the period, with Ford experiencing a particularly sharp reduction from 2002 onwards, reaching about 22 hours by 2005. General Motors, while maintaining a consistent drop, ended at slightly above 20 hours.

Toyota and Honda, on the other hand, maintained lower production times throughout. Starting at around 22 hours in 1998, Toyota gradually decreased its hours and eventually reached roughly 19 hours in 2005, the lowest among the four. Honda displayed a similar pattern, reducing its production time from about 21 hours in 1998 to just under 20 hours in 2005.

CÂU HỎI HOT CÙNG CHỦ ĐỀ

Lời giải

Sample 1:

Many young people work on a voluntary basis, and this can only be beneficial for both the individual and society as a whole. However, I do not agree that we should therefore force all teenagers to do unpaid work.

Most young people are already under enough pressure with their studies, without being given the added responsibility of working in their spare time. School is just as demanding as a full-time job, and teachers expect their students to do homework and exam revision on top of attending lessons every day. When young people do have some free time, we should encourage them to enjoy it with their friends or to spend it doing sports and other leisure activities. They have many years of work ahead of them when they finish their studies.

At the same time, I do not believe that society has anything to gain from obliging young people to do unpaid work. In fact, I would argue that it goes against the values of a free and fair society to force a group of people to do something against their will. Doing this can only lead to resentment amongst young people, who would feel that they were being used, and parents, who would not want to be told how to raise their children. Currently, nobody is forced to volunteer, and this is surely the best system.

In conclusion, teenagers may choose to work for free and help others, but in my opinion, we should not make this compulsory.

Sample 2:

Some individuals nowadays feel that youngsters should accomplish unpaid volunteer work in their leisure time for the benefit of society. I completely believe that it is critical to involve children in volunteer activity. The primary issues will be discussed with examples in this essay.

To begin with, teenagers who participate in unpaid employment are more responsible for local society. When adolescents interact with other individuals, they become aware of the issues that people face daily, such as poverty, pollution, and others. Furthermore, we have all been affected by the present COVID-19 outbreak, and many people have suffered a loss. According to "The Voice of Vietnam - VOV” a volunteer who is anti-virus and empathizes with the mental pain that the patients are experiencing, he always gives oxygen and food to those who need it the most. As a result, volunteering helps students become the most responsible citizens in the country.

Furthermore, unpaid employment can assist youngsters in broadening their social contacts and developing soft skills. Because when they work in an unpaid job, they will meet a variety of individuals and acquire a range of skills and abilities from others, such as leadership, teamwork, communication, and dealing with challenging situations. For example, a recent study in Japan discovered that students who participate in volunteer work are more sociable, enthusiastic, and tolerant of others. They will grow more extroverted, energetic, and hard-working as compared to youngsters who do not perform unpaid employment.

To conclude, I feel that rather than paying, young people should perform unpaid social work because they can acquire many important skills and are more responsible to society.

Sample 3:

There is a growing debate about whether all adolescents should be asked to perform mandatory volunteer work in their leisure time to help assist the surrounding area. Although there are a variety of benefits associated with this topic, there are also some notable drawbacks, as will now be discussed.

The advantages of teenagers doing voluntary work are self-evident. The first relevant idea is work experience. A valid illustration of this would be to increase their tangible skills. For example, an adolescent who volunteers to help in a customer service department will learn how to communicate effectively with people in different age groups. On a psychological level, the youth’s life skills will also be enhanced by having empathy towards others. This can be demonstrated by volunteering and assisting families living in low socio-economic backgrounds with their day-to-day tasks.

There are, however, also drawbacks that need to be considered. On an intellectual level, the teenager may get distracted from their study. This situation, for instance, can be seen when voluntary work is also being undertaken during school terms. There would be time constraints for both areas. On a physiological level, youth might experience fatigue as they are unaware of the acceptable working or volunteering hours and, as a result, sometimes they can be overworked.

In summary, we can see that this is clearly a complex issue as there are significant advantages and disadvantages. I personally believe that it would be better not to encourage the youths to do compulsory work because their studies might take them to a higher level in society, whereas volunteering could restrict this progress.

Sample 4:

Children are the backbone of every country. So, there are people who tend to believe that youngsters should be encouraged to initiate social work as it will result in flourished society and individualistic growth of youngsters themselves. I, too, believe that this motivation has more benefits than its drawbacks.

To begin with, social work by children can be easily associated with personality development because, during this drive, they tend to communicate with the variety of people, which leads to polished verbal skills. For example, if they start convincing rural people to send their children to school, they have to adopt a convincing attitude along with developed verbal skills to deal with the diverse kinds of people they encounter. This improved skill will help them lifelong in every arena. Apart from this, the true values of life like tolerance, patience, team spirit, and cooperation can be learned. Besides that, young minds serve the country with full enthusiasm that gives the feeling of fulfillment and self-satisfaction. This sense of worthiness boosts their self-confidence and patriotic feelings. Moreover, experiencing multiple cultures and traditions broadens their horizons and adds another feather to their cap.

However, it is truly said, no rose without thrones. Can the drawbacks of this initiation be ignored? Children go to school, participate in different curriculum activities, endure the pressure of peers, parents, and teachers and in the competitive world, they should not be expected to serve society without their self-benefits. This kind of pressure might bring resentment in their mind.

In conclusion, I believe, the notion of a teenager doing unpaid work is indeed good but proper monitoring and care should be given to avoid untoward consequences.

Sample 5:

Youngsters are the building blocks of the nation and they play an important role in serving society because at this age they are full of energy not only mentally but physically also. Some people think that the youth should do some voluntary work for society in their free time, and it would be beneficial for both of them. I agree with the statement. It has numerous benefits which will be discussed in the upcoming paragraphs.

To begin with, they could do a lot of activities and make their spare time fruitful. First of all, they can teach children to live in slum areas because they are unable to afford education in schools or colleges. As a result, they will become civilized individuals and do not indulge in antisocial activities. By doing this they could gain a lot of experience and become responsible towards society. It would be beneficial in their future perspective.

In addition to this, they learn a sense of cooperation and sharing with other people of the society. for instance, they could grow plants and trees at public places, and this would be helpful not only to make the surrounding clean and green but reduce the pollution also to great extent. Moreover, they could arrange awareness programmes in society and set an example among the natives of the state. This will make the social bonding strong between the individuals and this will also enhance their social skills.

In conclusion, they can “kill two birds with one stone” because it has a great advantage both for the society and for the adolescents. Both the parents, as well as teachers, should encourage the teens to take part in the activities of serving the community in their free time.

Lời giải

Sample 1:

Medical studies have shown that smoking not only leads to health problems for the smoker, but also for people close by. As a result of this, many believe that smoking should not be allowed in public places. Although there are arguments on both sides, I strongly agree that a ban is the most appropriate course of action.

Opponents of such a ban argue against it for several reasons. Firstly, they say that passive smokers make the choice to breathe in other people’s smoke by going to places where it is allowed. If they would prefer not to smoke passively, then they do not need to visit places where smoking is permitted. In addition, they believe a ban would possibly drive many bars and pubs out of business as smokers would not go there anymore. They also argue it is a matter of freedom of choice. Smoking is not against the law, so individuals should have the freedom to smoke wherever they wish.

However, there are more convincing arguments in favour of a ban. First and foremost, it has been proven that tobacco consists of carcinogenic compounds which cause serious harm to a person’s health, not only the smoker. Anyone around them can develop cancers of the lungs, mouth and throat, and other sides in the body. It is simply not fair to impose this upon another person. It is also the case that people’s health is more important than businesses. In any case, pubs and restaurants could adapt to a ban by, for example, allowing smoking areas.

In conclusion, it is clear that it should be made illegal to smoke in public places. This would improve the health of thousands of people, and that is most definitely a positive development.

Sample 2:

The earlier we can ban smoking in public places, the better it would be for humankind. Having foreseen the same, many offices and governing bodies imposed a strict ban on public smoking. This measure is generally applauded by the majority of mass. However, the opposing minority interrupts this ban as an act of arrest on one's free will. Let us discuss this moot issue below.

It is generally agreed and even proven with scientific studies, that smoking is injurious to health. The health problems that smoking can induce are numerous. Cancer is among the major detrimental effects of smoking on one’s health. As clearly shown on cigarette packages, smoking is a primary cause of cancer. Furthermore, the effects of smoking on the systemic and peripheral circulation in the human body are appalling, as put forward by medical experts. The havoc of this insane habit is so horrifying that research points towards its possible harmful effects on unborn children, even. Smoking is considered as a culprit among the many, behind congenital birth defects and anomalies.

Another factor significant to this context would be the financial constraints imposed by smoking. In many developing countries, where people work on daily wages, the habit of smoking has an atrocious impact on their quality of life. In the majority of the mediocre families, around the world, smoking drains the significant part of their family budgets. For example, I witnessed many problems with reference to my father being a chronic smoker and the financial crisis it caused.

The amount of carbon and other toxic elements exhaled into the atmosphere by active smokers has reached such dizzy heights that its effect on passive smokers is more or less a reality now. In fact, the effect of first-hand smoke is seen permeable to even the second and third-hand smokers in the spectrum. The significance of the public ban on smoking is not just justifying but a necessity as it calls for. As a result, it is widely banned in some offices and institutions. Awareness programmes are being conducted all around the world against this habit.

Though the public ban on smoking is an individual constraint to one's freedom, considering the passive effects of smoking I would strongly agree with the ban. In my view, this would be a punitive measure to safeguard the health and wealth of the public or the society.

Sample 3:

Smoking has inevitably been a concern of governments around the globe considering how to manage and educate smoking people. This is due largely to the danger of the substance contained in cigarettes, nicotine. As its drawback may also occur for the people near the smokers, policies related to this, particularly in public places, should be taken into account; whether it should be banned or not.

I personally think that forbidding such a dangerous activity will be much more beneficial, as it can prevent others from developing a vulnerable respiratory system. Moreover, this can keep the places so clean that people could always find them fascinating with less air pollution. However, governments should consciously provide some special places which, in this case, can be used for smoking.

On the other hand, people who have currently become addicted to smoke would find it hard to avoid smoking in such places. As a result, they may smoke, breaking the rule and not even feeling guilty. For this reason, there are two steps then to encounter this probable emerging problem. First, some strict laws and appropriate punishments, such as to pay more tax or to give any charity orphans or others needing. Second, education is one of the most prominent and essential ways to change people’s belief in terms of having their cigarette burnt.

However, banning such activity in public places is not merely a way to prevent others from harming smoke, but it will, to a larger extent, possibly be able to elevate people’s awareness of how dangerous smoking is.

To sum up, despite it being difficult for smokers to quit, the policy which bans smoking in public places should be applied in order to save others. Nonetheless, people’s education in terms of the drawbacks of smoking is a part of this aim.

Sample 4:

Smoking has been a major public health issue for decades, and despite numerous efforts to discourage the habit, it continues to be a prevalent problem in society. Not only does smoking harm the individual who partakes in the habit, but it also poses a significant risk to those who are in close proximity to the smoker. For this reason, many argue that smoking should be banned in public places in order to protect the health and well-being of the general population.

First and foremost, it is widely known that smoking causes a myriad of health issues for the individual who smokes. From lung cancer to heart disease, the negative impact of smoking on one's health is undeniable. However, what is often overlooked is the fact that secondhand smoke can also have serious consequences for non-smokers. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), secondhand smoke contains over 7,000 chemicals, hundreds of which are toxic and about 70 that can cause cancer. When non-smokers are exposed to these harmful chemicals, they are at an increased risk for developing the same health issues as smokers, including lung cancer, heart disease, and respiratory problems. This means that not only are smokers jeopardizing their own health, but they are also putting those around them in harm's way.

Furthermore, smoking in public places can have a negative impact on the overall environment. Cigarette butts, which are the most common form of litter, contain toxic chemicals that can leach into the soil and water, posing a threat to wildlife and polluting the ecosystem. In addition, the smoke itself contributes to air pollution, which can have detrimental effects on the environment and public health. By implementing a ban on smoking in public places, we can reduce the amount of secondhand smoke that non-smokers are exposed to and mitigate the environmental impact of smoking.

While some may argue that a ban on smoking in public places infringes upon an individual's right to smoke, it is important to consider the greater good of the population. The potential health risks and environmental impact of smoking far outweigh the desire of an individual to smoke in public spaces. By implementing a ban on smoking in public places, we can protect the health and well-being of both smokers and non-smokers, as well as the environment.

In conclusion, smoking not only harms the smoker, but also poses a significant risk to those who are nearby. With the potential health risks and environmental impact in mind, it is clear that smoking should be banned in public places. By doing so, we can create a healthier and safer environment for all members of society.

Sample 5:

In the present era, there is a rising trend of smoking, especially among the younger generation. Smoking has evident detrimental effects on both the smoker and the people in his surroundings. It is claimed that smoking should be prohibited in public areas. I strongly agree that smoking should be banned publicly to prevent its negative aspects on people.

To begin, there are many drawbacks of smoking which have progressive impacts on both individual and environmental level. First and foremost, it increases the risk of many health related issues in human beings, due to presence of disease producing chemicals in tobacco . For instance, a rising trend of lung related diseases, like tuberculosis and lung cancer, has been reported in smokers. Furthermore, smoke not only damages the body of the smoker, but also results in many unfavourable outcomes in the surrounding people. Moreover, it is very distressful and challenging for non-smokers to work in smoking places. So, there is urgent need to halt smoking in populated areas.

There is, however, a faction that claims that there are some challenges in preventing public smoking. Firstly, many resources will be consumed to construct specified smoking areas to restrict smoking at workplace and other public places. Simultaneously, there might be no checks and balances on people who are constrained to stay in specific smoking places.

To recapitulate, although there are few disadvantages of stopping people from smoking publicly, it has many beneficial impacts. I strongly agree to halt smoking in populated areas because it will remarkably decline the percentage of health related problems. Moreover, in the same way, it can aid in developing a comfortable environment at the workplace, as well as at other public places like shopping malls, restaurants and public transport.

Sample 6:

In the contemporary era, it is a moot point that smoking has detrimental effects on the smoker as well as the people living around him. A significant chunk of the community welcomes the conception, whereas the remaining members oppose the same. In this essay, I will explain this point of view in detail with the relevant examples to support my argument.

I am in agreement to a large extent with the aforementioned notion. Multifarious reasons can be discussed to justify my stance. The most conspicuous one is the smoker himself welcomes deadly diseases like cancer (mouth and lungs), kidney failure to his body. For instance, a cigarette contains killing components like tobacco, nicotine, and carbon monoxide these destroy the airbus of the lungs. As a consequence, a person’s digestive system starts to stop working. Its impacts do not appear overnight but if its consumption lasts for years a brutal death can knock at your door. Additionally, it is more harmful to passive smokers. To illustrate this, I would quote an instance of my friend who is suffering from lung cancer. However, he had never smoked in his life. He got infected just because his father is an active smoker. Having lived in the same house inhaling cigarette smoke he got affected.

On the other hand, I do have some grounds against the central idea. First and foremost, rationale is it may bring some of the businesses to an end. For instance, pubs and discos are usually visited by a proportion of 80% of smokers. If it is banned completely, it will wash off the above-mentioned businesses.

To put it in a nutshell, I personally believe that it is difficult to persuade people to quit but it must be prohibited in public places. Moreover, in clubs, there should be a separate area for smoking so passive smokers would not suffer.

Lời giải

Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.

Nâng cấp VIP