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 compares the capital was donated to developing countries between 2006 and 2010 by the US, EU, and other countries.
Overall, it is clear that the total aid money was an increase in this period. Besides, the US charities were the highest in all countries each year.
There is a significant rise in the total aid given which was from $15.7 billion in 2006 to $24.3 billion in 2009 and rising sharply to $30 billion in the next year. The US charities were always over 60% of total the world's donated money. Likewise, the US aid given was a reasonable increase each year. In 2006, this figure for the US is only $9.7 billion which doubled in the next four following years.
The charities of EU countries and other countries were $3.3 and $2.7 billion in 2006. In the next three years, the donated money rose slightly by $0.5 billion in EU countries and $0.4 billion in other countries. In contrast, both EU countries and other countries' charities decreased to $3.7 billion and $2.6 billion respectively.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-18 | minhphambinh1234 | 73 | view |
| 2023-07-18 | minhphambinh1234 | 67 | view |
| 2022-01-25 | Lê Quỳnh Mai | 67 | view |
| 2021-05-28 | Chu Thị Hải | 67 | view |
| 2020-11-21 | nguyen duc | 73 | view |
- When designing a building the most important factor is the intended use of the building rather than its outward appearance To what extent do you agree and disagree 56
- The tradition that the family gets together to eat meals is disappearing What are the reasons What are the impacts 61
- Some people thank that newly built houses should follow the style of the old houses in the local areas while others think that people should have the freedom to build houses of their style Discuss both views and give your opinion 61
- The chart below shows the percentage of water used by different sectors in Sydney Australia in 1997 and 2007 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparison 67
- The diagram below shows the process by which bricks and manufacturing for the building industry Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisions where relevant 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, if, likewise, 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 : 8.0 6.8 118% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 9.0 5.60731707317 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 24.0 33.7804878049 71% => 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: 820.0 965.302439024 85% => OK
No of words: 177.0 196.424390244 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.63276836158 4.92477711251 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.64748333727 3.73543355544 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50481995701 2.65546596893 94% => OK
Unique words: 85.0 106.607317073 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.480225988701 0.547539520022 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 230.4 283.868780488 81% => 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: 6.0 4.33902439024 138% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.4926829268 76% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.4022108012 43.030603864 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.0 112.824112599 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7 22.9334400587 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.8 5.23603664747 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 3.70975609756 189% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.09268292683 73% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.412962588213 0.215688989381 191% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.186881284116 0.103423049105 181% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.11144603574 0.0843802449381 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.258117689199 0.15604864568 165% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.071912391767 0.0819641961636 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.2 13.2329268293 70% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 79.6 61.2550243902 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.4 10.3012195122 62% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.28 11.4140731707 81% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.53 8.06136585366 81% => OK
difficult_words: 23.0 40.7170731707 56% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.4329268293 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.9970731707 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => 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.