Luyện tập: Essay 6 - Khóa học sinh viên Drive

The pie charts below show how dangerous waste products are dealt with in three countries.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

Hiện nghĩa

Hiện vai trò câu

Highlight nội dung

The charts compare Korea, Sweden and the UK in terms of the methods used in each country to dispose of harmful waste.

It is clear that in both the UK and Sweden, the majority of dangerous waste products are buried underground. By contrast, most hazardous materials in the Republic of Korea are recycled.

Looking at the information in more detail, we can see that 82% of the UK’s dangerous waste is put into landfill sites. This disposal technique is used for 55% of the harmful waste in Sweden and only 22% of similar waste in Korea. The latter country recycles 69% of hazardous materials, which is far more than the other two nations.

While 25% of Sweden’s dangerous waste is recycled, the UK does not recycle at all. Instead, it dumps waste at sea or treats it chemically. These two methods are not employed in Korea or Sweden, which favour incineration for 9% and 20% of dangerous waste respectively.

The pie charts below show how dangerous waste products are dealt with in three countries.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

employedtreats it chemicallydumps waste at seacountrydisposal techniqueput into landfill siteshazardous materialsmostdangerous waste productsusedthe methodsdispose ofharmful wastethe majority ofburied undergrounddangerous wastesimilarfar morenationsfavour

The charts compare Korea, Sweden and the UK in terms of in each country to .

It is clear that in both the UK and Sweden, are . By contrast, in the Republic of Korea are recycled.

Looking at the information in more detail, we can see that 82% of the UK’s is . This is used for 55% of the harmful waste in Sweden and only 22% of waste in Korea. The latter recycles 69% of hazardous materials, which is than the other two .

While 25% of Sweden’s dangerous waste is recycled, the UK does not recycle at all. Instead, it or . These two methods are not in Korea or Sweden, which incineration for 9% and 20% of dangerous waste respectively.

The pie charts below show how dangerous waste products are dealt with in three countries.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

Hiện nghĩa

Hiện vai trò câu

Highlight nội dung

Opening statementThe charts compare Korea, Sweden and the UK in terms of the methodscác biện pháp usedđược sử dụng in each country to dispose ofxử lý harmful wastechất thải có hại.

Overall statementIt is clear that in both the UK and Sweden, the majority ofphần lớn dangerous waste productschất thải nguy hiểm are buried undergroundchôn dưới đất. Overall statementBy contrast, mosthầu hết hazardous materialsvật liệu nguy hiểm in the Republic of Korea are recycled.

Looking at the information in more detail, we can see that 82% of the UK’s dangerous wastechất thải nguy hiểm is put into landfill sitesđưa vào các bãi chôn lấp. This disposal techniquekỹ thuật xử lý is used for 55% of the harmful waste in Sweden and only 22% of similartương tự waste in Korea. The latter countryquốc gia recycles 69% of hazardous materials, which is far morenhiều hơn than the other two nationscác quốc gia.

While 25% of Sweden’s dangerous waste is recycled, the UK does not recycle at all. Instead, it dumps waste at seađổ chất thải ra biển or treats it chemicallyxử lý bằng hóa chất. These two methods are not employedsử dụng in Korea or Sweden, which favourủng hộ (phương pháp) incineration for 9% and 20% of dangerous waste respectively.

The pie charts below show how dangerous waste products are dealt with in three countries.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The charts compare Korea, Sweden and the UK in terms of các biện pháp được sử dụng in each country to xử lý chất thải có hại.

It is clear that in both the UK and Sweden, phần lớn chất thải nguy hiểm are chôn dưới đất. By contrast, hầu hết vật liệu nguy hiểm in the Republic of Korea are recycled.

Looking at the information in more detail, we can see that 82% of the UK’s chất thải nguy hiểm is đưa vào các bãi chôn lấp. This kỹ thuật xử lý is used for 55% of the harmful waste in Sweden and only 22% of tương tự waste in Korea. The latter quốc gia recycles 69% of hazardous materials, which is nhiều hơn than the other two các quốc gia.

While 25% of Sweden’s dangerous waste is recycled, the UK does not recycle at all. Instead, it đổ chất thải ra biển or xử lý bằng hóa chất. These two methods are not sử dụng in Korea or Sweden, which ủng hộ (phương pháp) incineration for 9% and 20% of dangerous waste respectively.