the expenditure on fast food by income groups, UK 1990.
The bar chart indicates how much three income groups spent on three types of fast food in the UK in 1990.
Overall, It is obvious that the expenditure on each type of fast food was different in each income group. Another interesting point is that the low income group spent the least money on fast food.
People in the high income group spent the most money. In detail, hamburgers accounted for about 42 pence per week, which was over double the money spending on fish and chips. The lowest expenditure was just 17 pence per week on pizza. If we look at the average income group, hamburgers also saw a higher amount of budget that the consumers spent on than the other types, at 32 pence per week, compared with 25 pence per week on fish and chips and 12 pence per week on pizza.
Regard the low income group, people spent more money on fish and chips than on hamburger and Pizza. However, their spending was relatively low, at 17 pence per week on fish and chips, 14 pence per week on hamburgers and only 7 pence per week per on pizza.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-09-27 | Sheikh Sajib | 67 | view |
| 2024-09-27 | Sheikh Sajib | 78 | view |
| 2024-09-27 | Sheikh Sajib | 61 | view |
| 2023-09-25 | mbn250 | 11 | view |
| 2023-07-10 | hxyav | 56 | view |
- The charts below show the level of participation in education and science in developing countries and industrialised countries in 1980 and 1990. 73
- the graph shows UK acid rain emissions, from 4 different sectors between 1990 to 2007. 67
- the graph below shows the average growth in domestic products in wealthy countries countries that have adopted a global approach to business and countries that have not writing a report 87
- the graph show relative price changes for fresh fruit and vegetable, sugar and sweets, and carbonated drink between 1979 and 2009. 78
- Internet users as percentage of population. 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, look, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 7.0 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 33.7804878049 80% => 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: 847.0 965.302439024 88% => OK
No of words: 193.0 196.424390244 98% => OK
Chars per words: 4.38860103627 4.92477711251 89% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.72725689877 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.09901482716 2.65546596893 79% => OK
Unique words: 95.0 106.607317073 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.492227979275 0.547539520022 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
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: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.33902439024 46% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
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: 21.0 22.4926829268 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.7582419984 43.030603864 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.1111111111 112.824112599 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4444444444 22.9334400587 94% => 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 : 1.0 3.70975609756 27% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 1.13902439024 263% => Less 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: 0.183731627285 0.215688989381 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.112316367684 0.103423049105 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.110603636444 0.0843802449381 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.173560071235 0.15604864568 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.136087565639 0.0819641961636 166% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.0 13.2329268293 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 75.54 61.2550243902 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 10.3012195122 77% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 8.18 11.4140731707 72% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.72 8.06136585366 83% => OK
difficult_words: 25.0 40.7170731707 61% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.4329268293 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.9970731707 95% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.