The table shows the amount of money given in aid of technology of developing countries by charities in the US, EU and other countries from 2006 to 2010.
The table illustrates how much money was donated to developing countries in the period
2006-2010, by US and EU charities, to support technological development.
Overall, it is clear that total aid increased during this period. US aid was considerably
higher than that from other donor countries.
There was a significant increase in the total aid given, from $15.7 billion in 2006 to
$24.3 billion in 2009, rising sharply to $30 billion in the following year. US charities
provided most of this money, with a rise in aid each year from $9.7 billion in 2006 to
reach a peak of $22.7 billion in 2010.
However, contributions from other charities also increased. In EU countries, charities
gave $3.3 billion in 2006 and then aid grew slowly to $3.8 billion in 2008, followed by a
slight fall in the next year, before rising again to reach $4 billion at the end of the period.
Charities in other countries also provided increasing aid. Despite a similar fluctuation to
EU charities in the amount given each year, donations went up from $2.7 billion in 2006
to reach $3.3 billion in 2010.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-22 | wardiati | 78 | view |
| 2019-10-15 | khoavodoj | 78 | view |
| 2019-10-08 | koinoyokan | 84 | view |
| 2019-08-28 | oxfordpro111 | 78 | view |
| 2019-08-10 | JennieD | 67 | view |
- The graph below shows UK acid rain emissions, measured in millions of tonnes, from four different sectors between 1990 and 2007. 73
- The bar chart below shows the three main causes of land damage in four different areas in the world 56
- The bar chart below shows shares of expenditures for five major categories in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Japan in the year 2009. 73
- 1: The information below gives details about household income and spendingon food and clothes by an average family in one UK city in 2010 and 2013. 73
- The graph below shows female unemployment rates in each country of the United Kingdom in 2013 and 2014.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 11
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 11, column 59, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... next year, before rising again to reach billion at the end of the period. Chari...
^^
Line 11, column 61, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a billion'.
Suggestion: a billion
...ext year, before rising again to reach billion at the end of the period. Charities in...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, so, then
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 7.0 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 6.8 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 8.0 5.60731707317 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 33.7804878049 121% => 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: 901.0 965.302439024 93% => OK
No of words: 185.0 196.424390244 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.87027027027 4.92477711251 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.68801715136 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76316161111 2.65546596893 104% => OK
Unique words: 100.0 106.607317073 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.540540540541 0.547539520022 99% => OK
syllable_count: 248.4 283.868780488 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 3.36585365854 238% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.4926829268 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.6633848016 43.030603864 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.111111111 112.824112599 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5555555556 22.9334400587 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.55555555556 5.23603664747 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 14.0 3.83414634146 365% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 1.69756097561 118% => 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: 1.0 4.09268292683 24% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.403945568988 0.215688989381 187% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.186672165434 0.103423049105 180% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0981569121171 0.0843802449381 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144051532235 0.15604864568 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0806616534603 0.0819641961636 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.2329268293 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 76.56 61.2550243902 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 10.3012195122 74% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 11.4140731707 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.7 8.06136585366 96% => OK
difficult_words: 36.0 40.7170731707 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.9970731707 91% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
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.