The table below give information about sales of Fairtrade-labelled coffee and bananas in 1999 and 2004 in five European countries,
The two tables depict the data about the Fairtrade-labelled sales on coffee and bananas in five different countries during the years 1999 and 2004.
Overall, it is evident that the total sales of coffee by the trading company had contributed to the lowest shares in all the countries, whereas they made the highest impact on bananas during the same period.
Initially, the ratio of coffee sales had increased in all the European countries such as the UK, Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium, and Sweden to 18.5, 3, 0.2, 0.7, 0.2 million euros respectively from 1999 to 2004.
Furthermore, the fair price paid to the farmers from Switzerland for bananas had climbed its proportion from 15 million in 1999 to 24 million euros in 2004. Similarly, UK farmers' pay increased to 4.5 million in 2004. Additionally, Belgium farm owners paid only 0.6 million euros in 1999. However, the amount given by the trading company to the agricultural landowners had slightly decreased their contribution in Sweden and Denmark nations from 1999 to 2004.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-06-01 | trpg143 | 56 | view |
| 2023-11-16 | phamquanghmu | 73 | view |
| 2023-11-11 | Daniel3003 | 67 | view |
| 2023-11-11 | Daniel3003 | 67 | view |
| 2023-11-11 | Daniel3003 | 67 | view |
- The graph below shows the average carbon dioxide emissions per person in the United Kingdom Italy Sweden Portugal between 1967 and 2007 68
- The table below give information about sales of Fairtrade labelled coffee and bananas in 1999 and 2004 in five European countries 84
- The first shows how the energy is used in an average Australian household The second chart shows the greenhouse gas emissions which results from its energy use 73
- the chart below gives the information on ages of population in Italy and Yemen in 2000 and its projections in 2050 84
- The graph below gives information from 2008 report about consumption of energy in the USA since 1980 with projections until 2030 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, however, if, similarly, whereas, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 1.0 7.0 14% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 6.8 59% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 33.7804878049 86% => 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: 863.0 965.302439024 89% => OK
No of words: 169.0 196.424390244 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10650887574 4.92477711251 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.60555127546 3.73543355544 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82962762201 2.65546596893 107% => OK
Unique words: 98.0 106.607317073 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.579881656805 0.547539520022 106% => OK
syllable_count: 241.2 283.868780488 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 0.0 3.36585365854 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 7.0 8.94146341463 78% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 22.4926829268 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.8540371807 43.030603864 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.285714286 112.824112599 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1428571429 22.9334400587 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.28571428571 5.23603664747 158% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 3.70975609756 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
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: 0.31382243889 0.215688989381 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.152792894785 0.103423049105 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.161085257413 0.0843802449381 191% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.231629057585 0.15604864568 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.17692699646 0.0819641961636 216% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.2329268293 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 64.04 61.2550243902 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.3012195122 100% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 11.4140731707 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.12 8.06136585366 113% => OK
difficult_words: 46.0 40.7170731707 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.4329268293 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.9970731707 105% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.