the expenditure on fast food by different income groups in UK in 1990
The bar chart compares the spending on fast food in the UK in 1990 from three groups: high income, average income, and low income. Units are million.
Overall, while hamburger was popular to high income and average income group, people who have low income prefer to have fish and chips for their meals.
In 1990, hamburger was consumed mostly by the high-income group, at over 40 while the expenditure on hamburger of average earning group was around 30. Pizza came as second in the expenditure of the high-income group, about 2 times more than that of the middle class. Fish and chips were more attractive to the average income than the high earning group. It stood at 25 in the consumption of average income but only 16 in that of the high-income group.
Fish and chips were the most popular fast food at the low earning group. The spending on this food reached 16 million, was the same as the consumption of it by the upper class. However, the expenditure on hamburger and pizza of working-class was both the lowest, at 14 and just over 5 respectively.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-09-27 | Sheikh Sajib | 67 | view |
| 2024-09-27 | Sheikh Sajib | 78 | view |
| 2024-09-27 | Sheikh Sajib | 61 | view |
| 2023-09-25 | mbn250 | 11 | view |
| 2023-07-10 | hxyav | 56 | view |
- Studies show that criminals get a low level of education. Some people believe that the best way to reduce crime is educating people in prison so they can get a job after leaving prison. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 67
- The pie charts below compare the water usage in San Diego California and the rest of the world 84
- Some people believe that developments in the field of artificial intelligence will have a positive impact on our lives in the near future. Others, by contrast, are worried that we are not prepared for a world in which computers are more intelligent than h 73
- The main sources of energy of USA in 1980 and 1990. 56
- The diagram below show the development of the village of Kelsbey between 1780 and 2000Summaries the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 56
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 142, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a million'.
Suggestion: a million
...erage income, and low income. Units are million. Overall, while hamburger was popu...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, second, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 7.0 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 6.8 118% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 33.7804878049 92% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 3.97073170732 50% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 884.0 965.302439024 92% => OK
No of words: 187.0 196.424390244 95% => OK
Chars per words: 4.72727272727 4.92477711251 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.69794460899 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52001624109 2.65546596893 95% => OK
Unique words: 90.0 106.607317073 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.48128342246 0.547539520022 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 267.3 283.868780488 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.4926829268 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.6883271054 43.030603864 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.4 112.824112599 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7 22.9334400587 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.7 5.23603664747 52% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 1.13902439024 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.09268292683 98% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.338444900973 0.215688989381 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.132276702769 0.103423049105 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0688502741093 0.0843802449381 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.188738667704 0.15604864568 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0464487765988 0.0819641961636 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.2 13.2329268293 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 70.13 61.2550243902 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 10.3012195122 77% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.15 11.4140731707 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.72 8.06136585366 83% => OK
difficult_words: 26.0 40.7170731707 64% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.4329268293 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.9970731707 84% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.