The table illustrates how much money was donated to the developing countries in the period from 2006 to 2010, by the US, UK charities, to support technological development.)
Overall, it is evident that most of the countries experienced an increase during the given period. Meanwhile, the US countries always accounted for the highest amount of money compared to the remaining nations.
In 2006, the number of the US started at 9.7 billions of US dollars in aid of technology, nearly triple that of EU countries with $3.3 billions. The figure of the US climbed significantly to the peak of $22.7 billions in 2010, while that of EU countries showed a similar trend to largest point of $4 billions in 2010, apart from a small fall to $3.7 billions in 2009.
Standing at $2.7 billions in the initial year, the contribution from other countries rose steadily to $3.1 billions in 2008. There was a minimal dip to $2.6 billions in donations of other countries in 2009 before growing to $3.3 billions in the final year. The total aid escalated from $15.7 billions in 2006 to $30 billions in 2010.
The table illustrates how much money was donated to the developing countries in the period from 2006 to 2010, by the US, UK charities, to support technological development.)
Overall, it is evident that most of the countries experienced an increase during the given period. Meanwhile, the US countries always accounted for the highest amount of money compared to the remaining nations.
In 2006, the number of the US started at 9.7 billions of US dollars in aid of technology, nearly triple that of EU countries with $3.3 billions. The figure of the US climbed significantly to the peak of $22.7 billions in 2010, while that of EU countries showed a similar trend to largest point of $4 billions in 2010, apart from a small fall to $3.7 billions in 2009.
Standing at $2.7 billions in the initial year, the contribution from other countries rose steadily to $3.1 billions in 2008. There was a minimal dip to $2.6 billions in donations of other countries in 2009 before growing to $3.3 billions in the final year. The total aid escalated from $15.7 billions in 2006 to $30 billions in 2010.
- It is true that the quality of competitiveness is essential in almost societies Although there are several benefits from being competitive I believe that the drawbacks of this tendency cannot be overlooked On the one hand the development of communities ba 78
- It is true that playing video games on mobile phones is detrimental not only for individuals but also for the communities While this trend brings numerous drawbacks I believe that the benefits of playing electronic games cannot be overlooked On the one ha 67
- some people nowadays believe that modern technology has made shopping easier while others disagree Discuss both views and give your opinion 78
- The graph illustrates the amount of energy for the production and consumption in the US from 1950 to 2000 and predicts statistics for 2025 Overall it is evident that the figures for US consumption and US production increased over the period from 1950 to 2 67
- 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 tha 56
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ney compared to the remaining nations. In 2006, the number of the US started at...
^^^
Line 4, column 44, Rule ID: CD_DOZENS_OF[1]
Message: Use a singular form of the numeral here: '7 billion'.
Suggestion: 7 billion
...2006, the number of the US started at 9.7 billions of US dollars in aid of technology, nearly...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 274, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'to the largest'.
Suggestion: to the largest
... of EU countries showed a similar trend to largest point of billions in 2010, apart from ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 293, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...owed a similar trend to largest point of billions in 2010, apart from a small fal...
^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...m a small fall to .7 billions in 2009. Standing at .7 billions in the initial y...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, while, apart from
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 7.0 43% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 0.0 6.8 0% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 9.0 5.60731707317 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 45.0 33.7804878049 133% => 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: 888.0 965.302439024 92% => OK
No of words: 187.0 196.424390244 95% => OK
Chars per words: 4.7486631016 4.92477711251 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.69794460899 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80529071239 2.65546596893 106% => OK
Unique words: 102.0 106.607317073 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545454545455 0.547539520022 100% => OK
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: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.33902439024 138% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.0141345264 43.030603864 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.0 112.824112599 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.375 22.9334400587 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.25 5.23603664747 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 1.69756097561 295% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.09268292683 98% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.408155845908 0.215688989381 189% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.203224573719 0.103423049105 196% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.189085114372 0.0843802449381 224% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.305650223745 0.15604864568 196% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.212051730421 0.0819641961636 259% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.2329268293 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 73.51 61.2550243902 120% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 10.3012195122 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.57 11.4140731707 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.06136585366 102% => OK
difficult_words: 41.0 40.7170731707 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.4329268293 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.