The table below gives the information on consumer spending on different items in five different countries in 2002.
The pie charts below show the average household expenditures in Japan and Malaysia in the year 2010
The pie charts compare the average household spending between Japan and Malaysia in terms of 5 categories in 2010
Looking at the graphs, it is immediately obvious that both countries spent the largest proportion of their income on housing, food, and other goods and services. Additionally, money spent on transport and health care in Japan doubled those in Malaysia
In Japan, the percentage of Japanese household expenditure on housing was 21%, while this figure for transport was slightly lower, at 20%. At the same time, 24% of the total family spending in Japan was on food, whereas expenditure on healthcare accounted for only 6% of the total money spent by Japanese families. Meanwhile, the rate of spending on other goods and services stood at 29%, which was the highest figure.
In Malaysia, the proportion of spending on housing was highest, at 34%. Money spent on transport made up 10% of the total household expenditure, while the figure for food was significantly higher, at 27%. In the same year, 26% of spending in this nation was spent on goods and services. By contrast, only 3% was spent on health care sector
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-06-08 | khoathanh97 | 67 | view |
- The table below gives the information on consumer spending on different items in five different countries in 2002.The pie charts below show the average household expenditures in Japan and Malaysia in the year 2010 67
- Developments in technology have brought various environmental problems. Some believe that people need to live simpler lives to solve environmental problems. Others, however, believe technology is the way to solve these problems. Discuss both views and giv 78
- The internet has dramatically altered over lives over the past few decades. Although some of these changes have been negative, the overall effect of this technology has been positive. What are your opinions on this? 11
- The two pie charts below show the online shopping sales for retail sectors in Canada in 2005 and 2010 78
- Some people think that famous people can help international aid organizations to draw attention to important problems. Others believe that celebrities can make problems seem less important. Discuss both views and give your opinion 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, look, whereas, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 7.0 129% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 33.7804878049 112% => 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: 947.0 965.302439024 98% => OK
No of words: 190.0 196.424390244 97% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98421052632 4.92477711251 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.71268753763 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68506178452 2.65546596893 101% => OK
Unique words: 96.0 106.607317073 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.505263157895 0.547539520022 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 278.1 283.868780488 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 3.36585365854 238% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.8022715689 43.030603864 176% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.375 112.824112599 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.75 22.9334400587 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.0 5.23603664747 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
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 : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.09268292683 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.136178466755 0.215688989381 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0664519038445 0.103423049105 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0542705895873 0.0843802449381 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122609543363 0.15604864568 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0976396715767 0.0819641961636 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.2329268293 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 61.2550243902 92% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.3012195122 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.9 11.4140731707 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.06136585366 103% => OK
difficult_words: 42.0 40.7170731707 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 11.4329268293 162% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => 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.