The pictures show information about average income and spending on food and clothes by an average family in a city in the UK.
The given pictures compare a city in the UK in terms of how much an average family earned and spared their budgets for food and clothes.
It is evident from the table that local inhabitants were inclined to spend more money on food and clothes. Additionally, the pie chart indicated an upward trend recorded in all categories except for the figures for other food, clothes and dairy products.
Regarding the table, in 2010, the income of a family was 29,000, at with point it started to drop marginally to 25,000 in 2013. Likewise, local residents allotted 14,000 and 15,000 to food and clothes in 2010 and 2013 respectively.
In terms of the pie chart, in 2010, the figure for meat and fish accounted for the highest proportion of the chart, at 29%, which outnumbered that of clothes by two to one, at 15%. At the same time, whereas 26% and 18% of the total income were expensed for fruit and vegetables and other food in turn, the local citizens allocated 12% of their budgets to dairy products. To 2013, the rate of fruit and vegetables underwent a minimal increase to 30%, compared to a roughly similar trend witnessed in that of dairy products to 16%. By contrast, the locals were less interested in spending on meat and fish and clothes, with only 23% and 13% in that other. In addition, the share of other food remained unchanged, at 18%.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-06-09 | vuhungbo | 61 | view |
| 2023-06-09 | vuhungbo | 61 | view |
| 2022-12-14 | Johndavisvu | 67 | view |
| 2021-03-28 | Narges.s | 72 | view |
| 2020-02-21 | Nguyen Manh Dung | 72 | view |
- The diagram below shows the multistage production of pears as canned fruits 78
- The bar chart shows the distribution of employment among agriculture services in three countries in 1980 and projected distribution in 2020 61
- many people no longer read newspapers or watch TV programmes Instead they get news about the world from the Internet Is this a positive or a negative development 78
- The diagram below shows how the orange juice is produced 73
- The diagram shows Lakeside development between years 2000 and 2009 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
likewise, regarding, whereas, except for, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 7.0 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 6.8 221% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 8.0 5.60731707317 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 47.0 33.7804878049 139% => 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: 1112.0 965.302439024 115% => OK
No of words: 239.0 196.424390244 122% => OK
Chars per words: 4.65271966527 4.92477711251 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.93187294222 3.73543355544 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4769662444 2.65546596893 93% => OK
Unique words: 130.0 106.607317073 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.543933054393 0.547539520022 99% => OK
syllable_count: 325.8 283.868780488 115% => 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: 8.0 4.33902439024 184% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 13.0 3.36585365854 386% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.6371996655 43.030603864 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.2 112.824112599 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9 22.9334400587 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.3 5.23603664747 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
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: 0.198398064179 0.215688989381 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0780523757558 0.103423049105 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0842750984081 0.0843802449381 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.145422954275 0.15604864568 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.102648847638 0.0819641961636 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.2329268293 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 61.2550243902 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.3012195122 96% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.99 11.4140731707 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.06136585366 100% => OK
difficult_words: 50.0 40.7170731707 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.0658536585 90% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.