The pie charts below show the average household expenditures in Japan and Malaysia in the year 2010.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The provided charts give information on how households in Japan and Malaysia divide their spend in 2010.
A glance at the charts reveals that the division of household expenditures on certain aspects of two countries were unequal. In Japan, people spent most on other goods and services while housing took a large slice in Malaysia.
As presented in the charts, housing accounted for 34% of Malaysian household expenditures, whereas in Japan, it only took 21% of the pie and was the third highest spend. The amount of money spent on food in Japan and Malaysia was the second highest of each country with the proportion of 24% and 27% respectively. As for other goods and services sector, it made up for 29% of Japan household expenditures as compared to 27% in Malaysia.
On the other hand, health care spend was under 10% in both countries, with 6% in Japan and 3% in Malaysia. A quite similar picture can be seen in transport sector, on which the percentage of expenditures spend in Japan doubled that in Malaysia.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-05 | nhinhi999 | 78 | view |
| 2022-06-19 | Sarina2021 | 40 | view |
| 2022-06-19 | Sarina2021 | view | |
| 2022-03-27 | Ahmed Z | 81 | view |
| 2022-01-20 | Vuthungan | 78 | view |
- Schools are no longer necessary because children can get so much information available through the internet and they can study just as well at home To what extent do youagree or disagree 61
- Nowadays more and more people decide to have children later in their life What are the reasons What are the effects on society and family life 73
- The graph below shows the number of enquiries received by the Tourist Information Office in one city over a six month period in 2011 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
- The bar chart below shows transport preferences among young people in four countries in a single year Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 74
- The line chart illustrates population trends globally by percentage from 1950 to 2040 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 84
Transition Words or Phrases used:
second, third, whereas, while, as for, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 7.0 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 33.7804878049 104% => 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: 852.0 965.302439024 88% => OK
No of words: 176.0 196.424390244 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.84090909091 4.92477711251 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.64232057368 3.73543355544 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71776277554 2.65546596893 102% => OK
Unique words: 97.0 106.607317073 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.551136363636 0.547539520022 101% => OK
syllable_count: 250.2 283.868780488 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.4926829268 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 21.7586189819 43.030603864 51% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 106.5 112.824112599 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 22.9334400587 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 5.23603664747 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.09268292683 122% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.216607320744 0.215688989381 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102950283367 0.103423049105 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.054588493095 0.0843802449381 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.14956365183 0.15604864568 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0519838232367 0.0819641961636 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.2329268293 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 66.07 61.2550243902 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 10.3012195122 92% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.79 11.4140731707 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.51 8.06136585366 93% => OK
difficult_words: 31.0 40.7170731707 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.4329268293 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.9970731707 98% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.