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
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
- some people nowadays believe that modern technology has made shopping easier while others disagree Discuss both views and give your opinion 78
- The chart below shows waste collection by a recycling centre from 2011 to 2015 Summerize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
- People have different views about factors leading to people s achievements While I agree that material wealth and physical appearance are essential I believe that diligence and persistence are more significant On the one hand it is no doubt true that mone 89
- The bar chart shows mobile usage in a country by age group from 1998 to 2000 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 79
- The bar chart illustrates the amount of money spent on three different kinds of clothes per person in the US from 1985 to 2005 It is evident that women and men spend on attire more than boys and girls Besides the average expenditure on clothes grew gradua 78
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 13.1623246493 30% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 7.85571142285 0% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 10.4138276553 19% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 2.0 7.30460921844 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 8.0 24.0651302605 33% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 41.998997996 98% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 8.3376753507 24% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 900.0 1615.20841683 56% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 185.0 315.596192385 59% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.86486486486 5.12529762239 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.68801715136 4.20363070211 88% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76360569462 2.80592935109 98% => OK
Unique words: 101.0 176.041082164 57% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.545945945946 0.561755894193 97% => OK
syllable_count: 248.4 506.74238477 49% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.60771543086 81% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 16.0721442886 56% => 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: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.5986433661 49.4020404114 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.0 106.682146367 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5555555556 20.7667163134 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.55555555556 7.06120827912 50% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 14.0 4.38176352705 320% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 3.9879759519 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.432391753182 0.244688304435 177% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.216290581217 0.084324248473 256% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.162564390711 0.0667982634062 243% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.16416208021 0.151304729494 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.159015844834 0.056905535591 279% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.0946893788 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 76.56 50.2224549098 152% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 11.3001002004 67% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.91 12.4159519038 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.7 8.58950901804 90% => OK
difficult_words: 36.0 78.4519038076 46% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum five paragraphs wanted.
Minimum 250 words wanted.
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.