The table and charts below give information on the police budget for 2017 and 2018 in one area of Britain. The table shows where the money came from and the charts show how it was distributed.
The given table depicts the police budget from different sources while the pie chart illustrates the amount of money consumed for three purposes, measured in two years 2017 and 2018, in a certain settlêmnt in Britain.
In general, the police budget in that area increased after two years and the national government still played a vital role in contributing sources. As for spending, the quantity of money paid for salaries of officers and staff outnumbered spending on technology, building and transport.
In 2017, the total figure for police funds witnessed an upward trend, from around 300 million pounds to approximately 320 million pounds in the following year. Among the three sources, the national government still remain the leading source over two years, contributing more than two-sixths of the total, 175.5 million and 177.8 million respectively. The amount of money from local taxes also jumped considerably by more than 10 million pounds to reach 102.3 million pounds in 2018. Other sources (such as grants) accounted for the smallest part, at around 38 million pounds for two years. It is also clearly seen that the figure given by the other sources seemed to have a negligible fluctuation between 2017 and 2018.
About budgetary allocation, spending on salaries for officers and staff, despite a fall from 75 percent to 69 percent, made up the largest part. It is considered to be the strongest evidence to prove that police paid high attention to their employees than other aspects. Regarding of the amount of money consumed on building and transport, it showed to decline in the alteration, remaining 17 percent over two years. Last was spending on technology, with 8 percent in 2017 and 14 percent in 2018. In spite of having a remarkable growth of approximately 6 percent, it was still the lowest
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-03-29 | minhnhat2002 | 84 | view |
| 2024-03-29 | minhnhat2002 | 78 | view |
| 2024-03-09 | minhnhat2002 | 73 | view |
| 2023-12-12 | Ahmad_off | 78 | view |
| 2023-12-12 | Ahmad_off | 78 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 588, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ately 6 percent, it was still the lowest
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, regarding, so, still, while, as for, in general, such as, in spite of
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 : 9.0 6.8 132% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 8.0 5.60731707317 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 52.0 33.7804878049 154% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 3.97073170732 176% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1527.0 965.302439024 158% => OK
No of words: 299.0 196.424390244 152% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10702341137 4.92477711251 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 3.73543355544 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70198514162 2.65546596893 102% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 106.607317073 148% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.528428093645 0.547539520022 97% => OK
syllable_count: 432.9 283.868780488 153% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 1.53170731707 261% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 4.33902439024 138% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 3.36585365854 327% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 8.94146341463 145% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.1078266852 43.030603864 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.461538462 112.824112599 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 22.9334400587 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.46153846154 5.23603664747 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 3.70975609756 216% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.206886244288 0.215688989381 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0716861717505 0.103423049105 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0636140629738 0.0843802449381 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142035005649 0.15604864568 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0776787519213 0.0819641961636 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 13.2329268293 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 61.2550243902 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.3012195122 96% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 11.4140731707 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.16 8.06136585366 101% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 40.7170731707 157% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.4329268293 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => 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.