This chart demonstrates the average expenditure of two countries ,i.e., UK and France on consumer goods in the year 2010.
The buying of luxury items such as cars had a higher amount of expenditure as compare to any other items. People from the UK entitled of 4,90,000 while the individuals from France have spent 4,00,000. Both countries population seems tech savvy and therefore it shows that they have excessively bought computers of 3,50,000-3,80,000 within a year of 2010.
However, the UK enthusiast readily spent good average of money on buying books which costs around 4,00,00 but the people from France have spent nearly half of it. The perfumes got less demand in this countries and have only includes expenses of 1,40,000 in the UK and around 2,00,000 in the France. Finally, it is observant that the Britishers are more excited and keen in photography, made them spent total of 3,50,000 approx. which was doubled of the amount spent by French people.
Overall, it portrays that the people are extensively spending money on the items of interest in the UK while it is contradictory in the France.
- Nowadays people throw away old things and adapt new things. Do the disadvantage of throwaway society outweigh any possible economics advantage? 89
- The two maps below show an island, before and after the construction of some tourist facilities. 78
- The chart shows how frequently people in the USA ate fast food in restaurants between 2003 and 2013. 73
- The charts below show the number of girls per 100 boys in all levels of education. Summarize the information by selecting and reporting on the main features, and make comparisons where relevant 67
- Students today can easily access information online, so libraries are no longer necessary. Do you agree or disagree? 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 65, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...the average expenditure of two countries ,i.e., UK and France on consumer goods in...
^^
Line 3, column 207, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'countries'' or 'country's'?
Suggestion: countries'; country's
...s from France have spent 4,00,000. Both countries population seems tech savvy and therefo...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 196, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
... of it. The perfumes got less demand in this countries and have only includes expens...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, therefore, thus, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 7.0 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 12.0 5.60731707317 214% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 30.0 33.7804878049 89% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 3.97073170732 25% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 929.0 965.302439024 96% => OK
No of words: 186.0 196.424390244 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.99462365591 4.92477711251 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.69299088775 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7281383845 2.65546596893 103% => OK
Unique words: 107.0 106.607317073 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.575268817204 0.547539520022 105% => OK
syllable_count: 266.4 283.868780488 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 3.36585365854 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.4926829268 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.2153017241 43.030603864 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.222222222 112.824112599 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6666666667 22.9334400587 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.23603664747 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 1.69756097561 177% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => 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: 0.174812449578 0.215688989381 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0814011954279 0.103423049105 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.148265633054 0.0843802449381 176% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155570288511 0.15604864568 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.194616321952 0.0819641961636 237% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.2329268293 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 68.1 61.2550243902 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 10.3012195122 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 11.4140731707 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.06136585366 98% => OK
difficult_words: 39.0 40.7170731707 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.9970731707 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.