Anyway, the Nov MUET exam is around the corner. A really awesome and genius friend of mine came up with a variety.. and I mean totally exhaustive sample answer with every possible analysis and synthesis combo for last July's paper. Indeed this friend is wonderful, allowing me to share on my blog so the whole of Malaysia can benefit.
So before you look at the sample answers, take a long good look at the question above and try to write your own. The standard exam format for report is as below:
1. Title
2. Intro has 2 sentences:
i. What do you see? (Introductory Sentence: Figure 1 represents ... while Figure 2 shows.. etc)
ii. What is the most outstanding syntesis? (Overview: In general, ...)
3. Body may consist of 1 to 5 paragraphs, depending how you organise your ideas.
* Synthesis (comparing and linking stimuli) will garner more merit than Analysis (analysing data within any one stimulus only). Therefore, it is prudent to have more synthesis than analysis.
4. Conclusion has only 1 sentence which mirrors the Overview in the introduction.
* A good writer will be able to rewrite the Overview in the conclusion with a new twist/perspective/spin to make it more informative.
Below are the answers as per shown to me by my friend.
MUET Writing July 2015
Question 1
A. Title
1. Survey (Results) on Tiger Population in 3 (Different) Countries in 2000, 2005 & 2010 / in 3 Years (2000, 2005 & 2010)
2. Tiger Population in 3 Countries in 2000, 2005 & 2010 and Actions Taken to Protect them (in those 3 years)
3. Tiger Population in 3 Countries and Actions Taken to Protect them in 2000, 2005 & 2010.
4. Tiger Population in Myanmar, India and Indonesia (in 2000, 2005 and 2010) and Actions Taken to Protect them (in 2000, 2005 & 2010.)
B. Introduction
1. Figure 1 shows Tiger Population in Three Countries (in 2000, 2005 and 2010.) (while) Table 1 lists (the 4 actions of punishing poachers severely, protecting tiger habitat, setting up tiger reserve and educating the public taken) Actions Taken to Protect Tiger Population / them in the same 3 years / in 2000, 2005 and 2010.
C. Overview
1. Actions taken to protect tiger population in the 3 years had positive impacts on Myanmar and India, but not in Indonesia.
2. Generally, except for Indonesia, actions taken to protect tigers increased their population (in Myanmar and India)
3. On the whole/Generally, the more actions a country took the more tigers it had.
4. Generally, (the) tiger population of a country increased when it took more protective actions/actions to protect tigers.
5. There were positive correlations between actions taken and tiger populations in/for Myanmar and India but not in/for Indonesia.
6. (From the data) (It may be inferred that) The action of educating the public/action taken to educate the public might/may not have had (such an) / (a positive) impact on tiger population (compared to/as the) other 3 actions (of punishing poachers severely, protecting tiger habitat and setting up tiger reserves) might/may have had.
D. Key Features - Analysis / Synthesis
a) Analysis
1. In 2000, Myanmar had the most/highest number of tigers (250) while Indonesia had the least/lowest number (200).
2. India came in second with 240, ten less than Myanmar (in 2000).
3. In 2005, Myanmar (again) had the highest/most number of tigers (300) while India and Indonesia had the same/equal number of 150 or half of Myanmar’s tiger population.
4. In 2010, Myanmar (once again) had the most number of tigers/highest tiger population (430) compared to/while Indonesia (which) had the least/lowest number (110).
5. (Of the 3 countries), Myanmar always had the most/highest number of tigers / Myanmar’s tiger population was always the highest in all 3 years – with 250 , 300 and 430 in 2000, 2005 and 2010 respectively / 250 in 2000, 300 in 2005 and 430 in 2010.
6. Indonesia had the lowest number of tigers in 2000 (200) and 2010 (110).
7. India had the second most / highest number of tigers in 2000 (240) and 2010 (200) but the same number (150) as Indonesia in 2005.
8. Of the 3 countries, only Myanmar’s tiger population kept increasing in the 3 years from 250 in 2000 to 300 in 2005 and 430 in 2010. (while) the number of tigers in Indonesia continuously declined/dropped/fell (continued to drop) from 200 in 2000 to 150 in 2005 and to its lowest of 110 in 2010.
9. From 250 tigers in 2000, the number of tigers in Myanmar (continuously increased/rose) (continued to increase/rise) to 300 in 2005 and 430 in 2010.
10. Out of the 3 years, the population of tigers (was the highest (240)) in India (was the highest (240)) in 2000 (and lowest) (while it had the lowest number of tigers) in 2005(150).
11. India’s tiger population was the highest in 2000 (240) and dropped drastically to 150 in 2005, rising (and rose) by a third/one-third/roughly 33% to 200 in 2010.
12. To protect the tiger population (in 2000), Myanmar took more actions (2) (punishing poachers severely and protecting tiger habitat) than India which only punished poachers severely (in 2000.)
13. In 2010, Myanmar took all the 4 actions (punishing poachers severely, protecting tiger habitat, setting up tiger reserves and educating the public) while India took only 2 (punishing poachers severely and protecting tiger habitats) and Indonesia took none/did not take any to protect its tiger population.
14. Out of the/In the 3 years, Myanmar was the only country that set up tiger reserves in 2005 to protect its tiger population.
15. Myanmar was the only country that set up tiger reserves and in 2005.
b) Synthesis
1. Myanmar had the highest tiger population in 2000 (250) due to 2 of its actions to protect them/the tiger population, i.e., punishing poachers severely and protecting their habitat.
2. India had ten less tigers (240) compared to Myanmar in 2000 as it had taken only the one/one and only/single/sole action of punishing poachers severely/of severely punishing poachers.
3. As Indonesia had not taken any action to protect its tigers in 2000, (among the 3 countries) its tiger population was the lowest at 200 only.
4. In 2005, Myanmar had the highest population of tigers (300) as it had punished poachers severely, protected the habitat of tigers and educated its/the public.
5. India and Indonesia had the same number of tigers (150) in 2005 although Indonesia had educated its public/had taken the sole measure of educating its public while India had not taken any protective action at all.
6. In 2010, Myanmar had the highest tiger population (430) as it had taken all (the) 4 (protective) actions (of) (punishing poachers severely, protecting tiger habitats, setting up tiger reserves and educating the public).
7. The two actions of punishing poachers severely and protecting tiger habitat by India in 2010 led to it having the second highest number of tigers (200).
8. Despite its sole action of educating the public, Indonesia had the lowest number of tigers (110) in 2010.
c) Analysis & Synthesis
1. The two actions of punishing poachers severely and protecting tigers’ habitat could explain why Myanmar had the highest population of tigers (250) in 2000 while the absence of action could be the cause for Indonesia having the least number (200) of tigers. India with the second most number of tigers (240), ten less compared to Myanmar, punished poachers severely/had taken only one action of punishing poachers severely.
2. In 2000, Myanmar with the highest number of tigers (250), had taken the two actions of punishing poachers severely and protecting tigers’ habitat compared to India which had 10 less tigers (240) as it had taken only the single/sole action of punishing poachers severely. As Indonesia had taken no protective action, its tiger population was the lowest (200) (among the 3 countries) in 2000.
3. Myanmar had the most (number of) tigers in 2000 (250) when it punished poachers severely and protected the habitat of tigers. (In 2005), This number rose/increased to 300 (in 2005) making Myanmar still the country with the highest number of tigers as it had taken the extra action of educating the public (in 2005). In addition to/Together with the earlier 3 actions, (the) setting up (of) tiger reserves in 2010 further saw a (further) rise/an increase (of tiger population) to 430 again making Myanmar the country with the highest tiger population.
4. Taking the sole action of punishing poachers severely, India had the second most number of tigers (240), ten less than Myanmar in 2000. Dropping (even) this sole/only action in 2005, the number/figure fell to 150/could have led to the number (of tigers)/tiger population falling to 150. Tiger population picked up to increase/and increased to 200 in 2010/5 years later (in 2010) when India took the two actions of severely punishing poachers and protecting tigers’ habitats/tiger habitat(s).
5. India had the second highest (240) tiger population in 2000 when it punished poachers severely. The population dropped to 150 in 2005 when it took no protective action. However, its 2 actions of punishing poachers severely and protecting tiger habitats in 2010 was effective in causing a rise/an increase to 200 though not to its original 240 as in 2000/ten years ago.
6. In 2000, (the) tiger population was the lowest in Indonesia (200) as it had taken no protective action. The population dropped to 150 in 2005 despite its sole (protective) action of educating the public. Educating the public proved ineffective again (in 2010) as the population dropped further to its lowest of 110 (in 2010).
7. With only 200 tigers, Indonesia’s tiger population was the lowest (in 2000) among the 3 countries (in 2000) as it had taken no protective action. In 2005 and 2010, its sole action of educating the public was not effective as the number(s) of tigers/its tiger population continuously dropped/continued to drop to 150 and 110 respectively. (Is there a difference between continuously/continued here? Or is it better to just use ‘dropped’?)
8. In 2000, Myanmar took more (2) actions to protect tigers i.e., punishing poachers severely and protecting tiger habitats than India which only punished poachers severely while Indonesia did nothing. Therefore, Myanmar had the most number of / highest tiger population (250) with India coming in with the second highest of 240 while Indonesia had the least number of /lowest tiger population of 200. / Therefore, Myanmar had the most number of / highest tiger population (250) while Indonesia had the least number of /lowest tiger population of 200, with India coming in with the second highest tiger population/number of 240.
9. The number of tigers / Tiger population in Myanmar increased to 300 (still the highest among the 3 countries) in 2005 when it (took 3 actions) (punishing poachers severely, protecting tiger habitat and educating the public) / (added the action of educating the public) while tiger population in India and Indonesia dropped to 150 as India had not taken any action/as India had dropped its sole action of punishing poachers severely and despite Indonesia’s only action to educate its public to protect its tigers.
10. Myanmar’s tiger population increased to 300 in 2005 when it took the 3 actions of severely punishing poachers, protecting tiger habitats and educating its public while India’s and Indonesia’s tiger population dropped to 150, due to the former not taking any action(s) and despite the latter’s sole action/initiative to educate the public.
11. There was a significant increase/rise in the number of tigers / in tiger population from 300 in 2005 to 430 in 2010 (the highest among the 3 countries) when Myanmar took the extra action / added a fourth action of setting up / to set up tiger reserves. Despite continuing to educate the public (only one action) in 2010, Indonesia saw a drop in tigers to (tiger population in Indonesia dropped to) its lowest ever of 110 (the lowest among the 3 countries). In India the two actions of punishing poachers severely and protecting tiger habitats saw a 1/3 increase from 150 in 2005 to 200 in 2010.
E. Conclusion
1. In conclusion, it may be said (that) (in general) (except for Indonesia) (that) actions taken to protect tiger population/tigers had an impact on tiger /their population / it.
2. In conclusion, it may be said that (in general) (except for Indonesia) actions taken to protect tiger population increased tiger population/the number pf tigers.
3. In conclusion, it may (generally) be (generally) said that of the 3 countries, actions taken to protect tiger population had a positive effect / impact on tiger population in Myanmar and India (and not in Indonesia).
4. In conclusion, it may be said that of the 3 countries, actions taken to protect tiger population increased the number of tigers in Myanmar and India but not in/that of Indonesia.
5. In a nutshell, except for Indonesia, tiger population in Myanmar and India increased when more actions were taken to protect them.
6. Generally, the more protective actions a country took the higher its tiger population.
7. Generally, tiger population increased when more actions were taken to protect them.
Having
seen all the possibilities, pick and choose which sentences you would
prefer and remember to write within 150 to 200 words (best to write as
close to 200 words, a lil under is fine, try not to go overboard).
Paste your answers in the comments below if you would like to get a reply from me.
Cheers
and happy studying! Will update answers for July reading and writing
tomorrow. Once again, all credits go to my friend and I am thankful for
teachers who share! If you would like to share with me so I can help
blog about it, do email me as well. Sharing is caring!
