Average Distance School when No
School in Village 2002/3 and 2007/8
ATTENTION
1) Time: no limited time, but deadline:
15/1/2013
2) Interpretation: The chart above, using metric
system for length, shows the average distance school (ADS) located in four
areas of Laos (LPDR): Urban (U), Rural (R), Rural with road (RWR), Rural without
road (RWOR), and Laos as a whole. Both primary schools (PS) and secondary
schools (SS) in mentioned areas were took in account, when no school in village
in 2002 March (A), and 2007 August (B).
3) Method: Summarize the information by
selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
PS&SS: - ADS
in R, RWR, RWOR, and LPDR −−> A
> B
- ADS in U
−−> A < B
PS-a: - in
A, ADS in R −−> R ≈ LPDR
- in B, ADS in U −−> U ≈ LPDR
PS-b: - in
A, U had the shortest ADS, RWOR had the longest ADS
- in B, UWR had the shortest ADS, RWOR had
the longest ADS
SS-a: - in
A, ADS in RWR −−> RWR ≈ LPDR (very close)
- B was similar to A (ADS in RWR −−> RWR ≈
LPDR (very close))
SS-b: - in
A, U had the shortest ADS, RWOR had the longest ADS
- in B, ADS was the same that of A
4) Requirement: write at least 150 words in three
independent paragraphs.
ASSIGNMENT
The average of distance school, both
primary and secondary, located in three areas of Laos (rural, rural with road,
rural without road), and in Laos as a whole in 2002 March were longer than that
of 2007 August, by the same criteria. But the average distance school in urban,
both primary and secondary, did not follow suit during the same periods. (61
words)
In 2002 March, the average of distance
school in rural was close to that of the whole Laos, whereas the schools in
urban held this feature in 2007 August. Furthermore, the highest amount of the
average distance school in these two periods was the priority of the schools in
rural without road. More important, in mentioned periods, the lowest amount of
this item differed. In 2002 March, this feature was held by the schools in
urban; and, by the schools in urban with road in 2007 August. (87 words)
In 2002 March and 2007 August, the
amount of the average of distance school in rural with road was sharply close
to that of the whole Laos. Moreover, in these periods, the lowest amount of the
average distance school was the feature of the schools in urban, whereas the
highest was held by the schools in rural without road. (59 words)
<. . .>
ReplyDelete2) Interpretation: The chart above, using ^ the metric system for length, shows the average distance (school) ^ traveled to schools when there is no school located directly in a pupil's village (ADS) (located in) ^. The chart shows results from four areas of Laos (LPDR): Urban (U), Rural (R), Rural with (road) ^roads (RWR), Rural without (road) ^roads (RWOR), and Laos as a whole. Both primary schools (PS) and secondary schools (SS) in (mentioned) ^ the above-mentioned areas (were took in) ^ are taken into account (, when no school in village in 2002 March (A), and 2007 August (B)).
<. . .>
ASSIGNMENT
(The) ^In March 2002, the average (of) distance (school)^ traveled to schools, both primary and secondary, located in three areas of Laos (rural, rural with road, rural without road), (and) ^as well as in Laos as a whole(in 2002 March were) ^, was longer than that (of 2007 August,) ^in August 2007, judged by the same criteria. (But) ^Meanwhile, the average distance (school in urban)^traveled to schools in urban areas, both primary and secondary, did not follow suit during the same periods.
In (2002 March) ^March 2002, the average (of) distance (school in rural)^ traveled to schools in rural regions was close to that of the whole ^ofLaos, whereas ^by August 2007, this was true of the schools in urban (held this feature in 2007 August.) ^areas. Furthermore, ^while the highest (amount of the average distance school in these two periods was the priority of the schools in rural without road. )^average distance traveled to school shrank in size between the two periods mentioned in the chart, that rank was earned in both instances by schools in rural regions without roads. More (important, in mentioned periods, the lowest amount of this item differed. In 2002 March, this feature was held by the schools in urban; and, by the schools in urban with road in 2007 August.) ^importantly, in the intervening period between March 2002 and August 2007, the region with the shortest average distance traveled to school changed, from schools in urban regions in the former period to schools in rural areas with roads in the latter.
*Note from Aaron: Bonleuth, this data seems to suggest a major—and beneficial—shift between the two periods under examination, stemming from infrastructure work, allowing rural areas with roads to actually have closer schools than urban areas. This is remarkable. Intuition would suggest that such infrastructure work might lower the time traveled, but not the distance! Another logical theory, one that accounts for the counter-intuitiveness of the data, is that there simply aren't enough schools in Laos, and that the building of roads made the distance traveled in rural areas short enough to actually become shorter than that in urban areas. Perhaps not simply more and better roads, but also more schools should be built in Laos. My point in saying all of this is that I think such an analytical conclusion would be warranted in your final paragraph, as long as you don't overstate your theorizing. It would make a better ending than merely restating the facts. Otherwise, great work!