Model A — everyday exchange
A: I’m afraid the display’s text is too small to read.
B: I’m sorry about that. We can provide a larger-print version.
A: Thank you. The data are useful; I just need to see the labels.
B: I’ll place the readable copy beside the graph.
Model B — Culture / CLIL explanation
Urbanisation in Malaysia and Australia should be compared using a common indicator and year, not a mix of city totals and national shares. Urban definitions and settlement patterns differ. A higher urban share does not by itself measure quality of life. State the source, reference year and what is counted before drawing a comparison; keep historical textbook values labelled as historical.
A common dated comparison: World Bank indicator SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS for 2024 gives Malaysia 76.9170% and Australia 87.6021%, accessed 3 November 2026 (database updated 8 October 2026). Rounded to one decimal, these are 76.9% and 87.6%; the difference between the rounded figures is 10.7 percentage points. Both figures describe a national share, not a capital-city population. Australia’s higher share alone does not establish better housing or access to services. Source: https://api.worldbank.org/v2/country/VNM;MYS;AUS/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?date=2024&format=json&per_page=100