The presented pie charts compare Japan and Malaysia citizens in terms of how they distributed their incomes among 5 counterparts in 2010.
Overall, housing, food as well as other goods and services were three categories into which residents channeled most proportions of their budget in both nations. However, while other goods and services ranked first among 5 items in Japan, people tended to prioritize their budget on housing in Malaysia.
Turning into detail, the percentages of housing and transport displayed significant gaps between two regions. Specifically, Malaysian people spent 34% of their budgets on housing, while the rate of Japanese was considerably lower, with 21%. By contrast, expenditure for transport occupied 20% of domestic income in Japan, which was two times higher than a 10-per-cent rate in Malaysia.
Regarding to remaining categories, a gap of 3% between the figures for same items in both countries can be observed. Indeed, with 29% and 6%, respectively, other goods and services, along with healthcare, accounted for higher rates of total income in Japan than they did in Malaysia. Unlike these two sectors, a 24-per-cent number occupied by food in Japan was slightly lower than its value in Malaysia, which was 27%.
- The chart shows the average annual pay for doctors and other workers in 7 different countries in 2004.Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 84
- 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. 78
- Some people think that governments should ban dangerous sports, while others think people should have freedom to do any sports or activity. Discuss both views and give your own opinion? 78
- The diagram illustrates the process that is used to manufacture bricks for the building industry. Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant. 56
- The graph below shows the consumption of fish and some different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004.Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, regarding, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 7.0 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 8.0 5.60731707317 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 36.0 33.7804878049 107% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 3.97073170732 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1063.0 965.302439024 110% => OK
No of words: 198.0 196.424390244 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36868686869 4.92477711251 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.75116612262 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81358464331 2.65546596893 106% => OK
Unique words: 122.0 106.607317073 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.616161616162 0.547539520022 113% => OK
syllable_count: 310.5 283.868780488 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.4926829268 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 17.5189491764 43.030603864 41% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 118.111111111 112.824112599 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 22.9334400587 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.55555555556 5.23603664747 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => 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: 0.0976018703238 0.215688989381 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0436411604743 0.103423049105 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0501608744735 0.0843802449381 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0740828475635 0.15604864568 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0501956490437 0.0819641961636 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.2329268293 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 61.2550243902 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.3012195122 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 11.4140731707 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.75 8.06136585366 121% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 40.7170731707 155% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.9970731707 98% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => 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.