*The first chart illustrates how much electricity is consumed daily in winter and summer by people in England while the second chart depicts the main reasons for using electricity.

Overall, considerably more electricity is used by English households during winter compared to summer time. It is also worth mentioning that the consumption of electricity peaks, especially during late night hours in both seasons. The pie chart, on the other hand, reveals that electric power is primarily used for heating purposes.

Regarding daily energy consumption in England in winter, the amount of electricity used fluctuates between 30,000 and 40,000 units from midnight to midday. It then rises exponentially, reaching a peak of just under 50,000 units at around 9pm; however, closer to midnight, the demand for electricity instantly plummets to 35,000 units.

In contrast, significantly less electricity is needed in summer months. From midnight to midday, English homes have been found to use under 20,000 units of electricity, with the least amount being recorded between 6am to 9am, at 15,000 units. Electricity consumption, however, climbs to 20,000 units at 2pm – but it yet again drops to around 15,000 units between 3pm and 9pm. Much like in winter, another peak is recorded right before midnight at 20,000 units.

As for the primary uses of electricity in an average English household, by far the most amount of power is utilized for heating rooms and water, at just over half. The figure for powering electrical appliances such as ovens, kettles, and washing machines comes in a distant second, at 17.5%. By contrast, the amount of electricity used for lighting, TV, and radio is lower, at 15%, which is identical to the amount for vacuum cleaners, food mixers, and other electric tools.

**(287 words, by Mukhammadali)

118/366*✅****

#task2❗️❗️❗️

*People are using a lot of online language translation apps.

**Are there more advantages than disadvantages to such services?

117/366*✅****@essay365

*Translation applications on the Internet are in widespread use these days. While there are some downsides to this trend, I believe its upsides are more significant.

Admittedly, online translation apps are not without their shortcomings. The most significant one is inaccuracies in interpretation. Because human languages are complex in nature, both from cultural and technical aspects, online translation tools often fail to account for cultural and linguistic nuances such as slang terms, jargon, and other similar culture-specific expressions. As a result, users many experience misunderstandings and possibly cause offence. Another negative implication is overdependence among language learners. Instant access to online translation applications such as Google Translate tempts the language learner to over-rely on them for learning purposes. This, in turn, creates a sense of complacency, creating a generation of incompetent language learners.

Despite the possible issues with frequent use of online translation apps, I share the view that these tools are beneficial. Convenience is the most immediate benefit of translation apps seeing as they save the user time and money. Google Translate, for instance, allows people to translate into over hundred languages instantly and at no cost. Thanks to this interpretation tool, people from all walks of life are more productive in their day-to-day business. From a cultural standpoint, translation apps on the web help overcome language barriers. Gone are the days when people avoided interaction with foreigners when travelling or at conferences for fear and embarrassment of poor language skills. Eliminating language barriers, translation apps enabled greater mutual understanding among people of different language backgrounds. Finally, translation apps can serve as a useful educational tool when used wisely. They can provide instant aid to foreign language learners, allowing them to develop better language skills.

In conclusion, the demerits of using online translation apps pale in comparison to their advantages such as convenience, a heightened sense of mutual understanding among people, and an educational help to the language learner.

**(320 words, by Mukhammadali)

117/366*✅****

*The image illustrates the steps involved in the recycling of plastic bottles.

Overall, the recycling process takes about 9 steps, which initiate when plastic bottles are discarded and end with the manufacture of plastic items. Being a versatile material, plastic waste can be made into several useful products.

For the recycling cycle to begin, individuals should dispose of their plastic items responsibly by placing them in designated trash bins. Once disposed, these items can be collected by garbage trucks and transported to a recycling center for sorting. Upon arriving at the recycling facility, plastic bottles are sorted manually in terms of their recyclability. Bottles that pass this selection stage are, subsequently, compressed into blocks before they are cleared for the next stage.

At the following stage, the compressed blocks should be crushed with the help of a crusher placed over a water basin, which is used for washing the crushed plastic pieces. Having been washed thoroughly, these pieces have to be put inside another crusher, which grinds them into tiny plastic pellets.

These pellets become a source production material after they are heated, and this raw material can, in turn, be utilized in the making of new bottles, plastic containers, synthetic fiber T-shirts, and many other practical commodities.

**(208 words, by Mukhammadali)

116/366*✅****

*It is argued that electronic devices such as smartphones and tablets are damaging social interaction. I personally share the same view.

Admittedly, communication technologies have improved our social interactions in some regards. Increased and swift connectivity they bring have meant that physical boundaries are no longer an obstacle, and people can reach each other in an instant on social media platforms such as Instagram and Telegram. As a result, people now have chances to interact with a great number of people effortlessly. They have also proved reliable for communication in times of emergencies such as global pandemics or natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis, which helps maintain correspondence regardless of the circumstances.

I, however, would contend that technology is undermining human social interactions. The primary reason has to do with their intrusive nature. Children checking their social media feed at dinner time or employees receiving constant phone calls and messages in a meeting have become a common scene. This often distracts people from being entirely present in social gatherings or public meetings, thus compromising the quality of their interactions. Not only has technology degraded human interactions, but it also has diminished their frequency. Since most people these days prefer online communication in the form of video calls or discussions on chat groups over face-to-face meetings, they are spending increasingly less time interacting in person. This, in turn, has taken its toll on their interpersonal skills, making them less adept at real-world interactions.

In conclusion, granted, technology has contributed positively to communication in some respects, but I am of the opinion that it hinders human interaction with its disruptive nature and apparent convenience.

**(272 words, by Mukhammadali)

115/366*✅****

#task2❗️❗️❗️

*Some people say that technologies such as mobile phones are disrupting social interaction.

**To what extent do you agree or disagree?

115/366*✅****@essay365

*The table compares where retired people in three countries, namely the UK, Thailand, and Japan received monetary assistance in 2017 while the bar graph draws comparisons in terms of employment patterns in these countries.

Overall, while a significant proportion of retirees in the UK and Japan were supported by public pension, those in Thailand were given financial aid mostly by their family. Furthermore, the majority of people in all countries in question were employed in the private sector; however, only a minority were eligible for private sector pension.

According to the table, nearly half of retirees in the UK and Japan received public pension while this figure for Thailand was 17%. The percentage of private pension beneficiaries in the UK was roughly a quarter, distantly followed by Japan and Thailand with 4% and 8% respectively. Some senior citizens in these countries relied on their investment income, with their shares making up about a tenth or less. A notable 18% of retirees in Thailand had a stream of income from business, which was about twice as much as in Japan and five times as much as in the UK. Similarly, wages from working accounted for varying shares of retires, roughly a fifth in Japan compared to 12% and 8% in the UK. Finally, old people supported by their families in Thailand constituted just over two-fifths, while this figure was much lower for the UK and Japan.

Regarding employment distribution, by far the biggest percentage of people were recruited in the private sector in all countries, with over half in the UK and Japan and staggering three-fifths in Thailand. The figures for the public sector, on the other hand, were much smaller, accounting for around a quarter in Thailand and Japan, which was slightly higher than the UK (21%). While the share of the unemployed in the UK and Japan was an identical 23%, it made up 14% in Thailand.

**(318 words, by Mukhammadali)

114/366*✅****

*The diagrams describe how much electricity was produced from renewable and non-renewable energy sources in 2015 as well as some projections for the year 2040.

Overall, in 2015, most electricity was generated from fossil fuel while the least amount from solar. In 2040, fossil fuel will remain to be the main source of energy for electricity production, though its contribution, along with that of nuclear and other renewables, is expected to fall. However, the figures for solar and wind based electricity are predicted to rise. Of particular note is the total energy capacity, which is forecast to double.

In 2015, fossil fuel made up virtually two-thirds of the total electricity production, which was nearly three times as much as the figure for the second biggest electricity source – other renewables (23%). In sharp contrast, just about as much electricity was generated from wind as nuclear, at roughly 6%, while a tiny fraction of energy was solar, at 2%.

Electricity production scheme is predicted to change radically in 2040. Fossil fuel will remain to be the main source of electricity, but its figure will shrink by a fifth, dropping to 44%. On the other hand, the share of solar will grow nine-fold, reaching 18% while that of wind will more than double, constituting 12%. The figures for the remaining categories such as other renewables and nuclear are anticipated to decline negligibly, falling to 21% and 5% respectively. Finally, the total amount of electricity produced will nearly double, going from about 6.7 GW to 11.7 GW.

**(254 words, by Mukhammadali)

76/366*✅****