Main Menu Top Menu


The bar chart illustrates the proportion of people who lived by themselves in the USA, in five different age groups (17-26, 27-36, 37-46, 47-54, and 55-64), in 1850, 1900, 1950 and 2000.

Overall, the percentage of Americans aged 55-64 who lived alone were highest in all measured years. In addition, figures for all age groups increased over the period.

The percentages of those living alone aged 37-46, 47-54, and 55-64 all followed similar trends over the measured period. There were significant increases in these figures beginning at around 2%, 2% and approximately 3% in 1850, and ending at around 7%, 13% and 17% respectively, in 2000.

Additionally, Americans aged 27-36 did not start living alone until 1900, beginning at just over 2%, and rising to around 8% in 2000. Furthermore, Americans aged 17-26 also did not start to live by themselves until around 1950, beginning at around 2% and increasing to approximately 5% in 2000.

(155 words)

Many people believe economic development is the only solution to end hunger and poverty, while others think that economic growth should be stopped due to the harmful effects it has on the environment. In this essay, I will examine both arguments and then give my personal opinion.

It is true that economic growth has taken a heavy toll on the environment. Firstly, the ever increasing demand for industrial development has led to the construction of more factories and manufacturing facilities, which has significantly raised the volume of atmospheric greenhouse gases, which are considered to be the main culprit behind global warming. Furthermore, human activities, such as clearing forests for farming, are directly responsible for the loss of natural habitats for many wild plants and animals, pushing these species to the verge of extinction. This, together with the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, poses serious threats to the survival of mankind, especially with today’s rapidly increasing population.

However, trying to stop the economy from developing, due to the drawbacks, is not a rational approach, for economic growth is still the most effective measure to tackle poverty and hunger. A healthy economy will create more employment opportunities for those who come from underprivileged backgrounds, and thus ensure stable income for these people. Therefore, they will be able to earn enough money to cover basic living expenses. Besides this, economic growth also has a crucial role to play in the fight against hunger. With a more generous budget to invest in agricultural development, for example, governments can invest in modern machinery to automate the labour-intensive processes of growing and harvesting crops. Such a boost in productivity will increase food production and eventually put an end to hunger.

In conclusion, it is understandable why many people believe that economic growth should be stopped to protect our environment, however, I think the government should not rely on such a desperate measure because the benefits brought about by economic growth, not only in the fight against poverty and hunger, are far more significant than the drawbacks.

(340 words)