The table below shows the proportion of different categories of families living in poverty in Australia in 1999.
The table illustrates the percentage of a range of Australian family’s arrangement suffering from imporverishment in 1999.
Overall, it is evident that more than one-tenth of Australia’s households lived in hardship in the last year of the 90s. It is also clearly seen that household of children living with married couple is the most prevalent type of family facing the problems of destitude. However, this notion is less prominent in families that include one or two elderly members, of which the poverty proportion is significantly lower compared with the former structure.
According to the given chart, the nuclear family type accounts for the highest number of households living in hardship, which is half the overall population. Approximately one in five single-parent households struggles with economic misfortune and this family structure also make up the highest poverty precentage of its own types in 1999 (21%).
In contrast, the number of aged couple household living in poor condition was significantly lower than those aforementioned family types with nearly 50,000 and the poverty proportion is also the least (4%). The poverty shares of their younger counterparts without children, however, is slightly more with about 7% and account for merely one-ninth of the population. Lastly, the economic instability proportion of younger one-member household (19%) compared to the older’s (6%) is threefold, which makes up nearly 20% of the population.
- Plan A below shows the ground floor of a particular art gallery in 2005 Plan B shows the same area in the present day Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features make some comparisons where relevant 87
- The maps below illustrate how Frenton changed from 1990 to 2012 67
- The maps below show a beachfront area in Australia in 1950 and today Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 64
- The plans show Ashford in 2010 and Ashford now Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 11
- Bullying is a big problem in many schools What do you think are the causes of this What solutions can you suggest 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, lastly, so, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 7.0 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 6.8 59% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 3.15609756098 190% => OK
Pronoun: 10.0 5.60731707317 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 36.0 33.7804878049 107% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 3.97073170732 227% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1239.0 965.302439024 128% => OK
No of words: 225.0 196.424390244 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.50666666667 4.92477711251 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.87298334621 3.73543355544 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07828395356 2.65546596893 116% => OK
Unique words: 127.0 106.607317073 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.564444444444 0.547539520022 103% => OK
syllable_count: 378.0 283.868780488 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.45097560976 117% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.4926829268 111% => OK
Sentence length SD: 25.7887907509 43.030603864 60% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 137.666666667 112.824112599 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 22.9334400587 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.66666666667 5.23603664747 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 3.70975609756 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 1.13902439024 615% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.09268292683 49% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.216371151669 0.215688989381 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0945364067032 0.103423049105 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0394706695725 0.0843802449381 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142527681893 0.15604864568 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0203253597313 0.0819641961636 25% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 13.2329268293 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 61.2550243902 61% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 10.3012195122 138% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.97 11.4140731707 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.44 8.06136585366 117% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 40.7170731707 160% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.9970731707 109% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.0658536585 136% => 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.