July 2015 Report Writing

Hey all... yes I know it has been quiet on this blog. Way too much happening in realtime.
Been busy running lots of courses and seminars as well as taking up a Form 5 class which
I don't normally do anymore. They will be sitting for their SPM tomorrow so good luck to
them.
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 Myanmars 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 /
Myanmars 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 Myanmars 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. Indias 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, Indonesias 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 Indonesias only action to educate its public to protect its tigers.
10. Myanmars 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
Indias and Indonesias tiger population dropped to 150, due to the former not taking any
action(s) and despite the latters 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!

Sample 1
Students should be allowed to bring mobile phones to school.
In this era of information technology and social media, mobile phones are becoming
more of a norm than a luxury item. In fact, more and more students are able to save their
money and buy mobile phones of various brands such as Samsung, HTC, Lenovo and
Oppo in order to stay connected with their friends and family. In my humble opinion, I
truly believe that students should be allowed to bring mobile phones to school because it
is good to teach them to be responsible for their own belongings. There are a few reasons
for this, namely, easier to communicate (A1), an excellent source of information (A2) and
schools can control usage of phones (A3).
Firstly, students should be allowed to bring their mobile phones to school because it will
definitely make communication easier for everyone. This means that the mobile phone is
a useful tool to make calls or send messages. Moreover, it is very convenient to inform
our parents if there are any changes to the timetable. For example, if we need to let our
parents know when to pick us up if the school suddenly has a program such as IM1S, cocurricular activities, marching practice and so on. Therefore, if students are allowed to
bring their handphones to school it would be so much easier to keep everyone informed
about our whereabouts.
Secondly, mobiles phones are an excellent source of information and this is another factor
why we should allow students to bring them to school. This is because students who have
smartphones will have access to all the information on the internet at the tip of their
fingers. In addition, it will help them do their work better and more efficiently. For
instance, they can research online for information on projects given to them by teachers
such as researching facts on famous people, science experiments, essays, reports and
many more. Thus, allowing students to bring mobile phones to school will help them tap
into the multitude of information that exists in the world wide web today.
Finally, a final factor why I agree that students should be allowed to bring mobile phones
to school is that the usage can still be controlled by the school authorities. The main
reason for this is that the teachers have to explain the rules clearly to students that they

can only use it outside the class teaching hours such as before and after lessons and
during recess. Furthermore, it will teach students to be more responsible for their own
things and make them better adults. Take for example the rule that if they use it during
lessons the teachers can confiscate the phones, report to the discipline master, call their
parents and others. Hence, it is the schools responsibility to control the usage of the
mobile phones so that it can bring more advantages to the students especially in
improving their education.
Conversely, there are other factors why mobile phones should not be allowed. This is
because some students who do not have mobile phones will feel inferior compared to
their rich friends who can afford smart phones. Additionally, handphones can be very
distracting to the students because they will constantly want to look at their phones. Some
examples are students become distracted when they play games, watch Youtube, make
funny videos of their friends and teachers, cheat during examinations and so on.
Ultimately, there are always two sides to a coin so we should realise and accept that there
will be some disadvantages of allowing students to bring their phones to school.
In short, students should be allowed to bring mobile phones to school because
handphones ease communication, allows students unlimited access to online information
and the school authorities can still control the usage so normal lessons are not disrupted
even though there are some disadvantages. I still absolutely agree that students should be
allowed to bring mobile phones to school because it is a useful learning tool. I hope that
the government through the Ministry of Multimedia and Communication should
spearhead a comprehensive strategy to provide a solution by giving smartphones and
providing free Wifi connection to all students in Malaysia.
Sample 2
Money is the most important thing in modern life.
In this era of modernisation, money seems to be the most important thing in life. In
fact, without money, life would be quite a torture because we would not be able to buy
what we want including food, clothes or even afford a safe place to stay. People would do
anything for money, hence the saying Money is the root of all evil. From my
perspecctive, I totally disagree that money is the most important thing in modern life
because we cannot survive on money alone. There are a few reasons for this, namely,
family is by far more important in life (A1) followed by religion (A2) and good health
(A3).
First and foremost, money is not the most important thing in modern life because family
is much more important than money. This means that even though we are poor, we will
still be able to survive with the support of our family members. Moreover, parents who
love their children will work hard to earn money so that they can all live a better life. For
example, we will always turn to and rely on our family members for support when there
is a problem, accident, disaster and so on. Therefore, money is not the most important
thing in modern life because family always comes first.
Secondly, a strong upbringing in religion is another factor why money is not the most
important thing in life. This is because in times of problems and pain, each person
normally turns to religion for support because a strong belief will give people strength to

face all situations. In addition, it does not cost any money to have a good religious
upbringing. For instance, parents can ensure that through religion, their children can
differentiate black from white, bad from good and make the right choices in life, love,
career, friends and many more. Thus, the keyword is most and money is surely not the
most important because a family with a good religious background is by far more
important than having money.
Last but not least, a final factor why money is not the most important thing in modern life
is health is wealth and no amount of money can buy good health. The main reason for
this is in comparison to money, health is definitely more important because if we do not
have good health, life would be very hard to live to the fullest. Furthermore, good health
is essential if we want to make money to support ourselves and our family. Take for
example a person with good health can get a good job like being a pilot, teacher, doctor
and others. Hence, without good health, money is meaningless and all the money earned
will be spent on paying for doctor fees and medicine.
On the contrary, there are other factors why money is important in this modern life even
though it is not the most important. This is because modern lifestyle is not cheap and
there are many bills to be paid in order to survive. Additionally, we are no longer living in
the era where we can build a house out of materials from the forest or plant food and hunt
or gather in order to eat. Some examples of a modern life are we need money to buy a
house or pay rent, purchase food and clothes, pay for school fees and buy books and
stationery, travel, eat out in fancy restaurants or fast food outlets and so on. Ultimately, it
cannot be denied that money is still very important but it is not the most important thing
in this modern life.
In a nutshell, money is not the most important thing in our changing world today because
family comes first, religion provides us a solid foundation and health is wealth even
though there are some reasons why money is important for our survival in this modern
world. I still absolutely think that money cannot be the most important thing in life
because family, religion and health will always come first. I hope that the nongovernmental organisations such as Sabah Womens Association (SAWO) should
organise an effective campaign to overcome materialism and teach the community that
money is not everything by conducting Family First talks and raising awareness on
Health is Wealth.