The three pie charts show the annual spending by a particular UK school in 1981, 1991 and 2001.
The pie charts compare the proportions of budget allocated to different subjects annually by a certain UK school after 20 years.
It is clear that all three years witnessed the highest expenditure on teachers’ salaries, while the insurance always received the lowest interest from the school over the period.
First, in terms of teachers’ wage, the total spending on this subject raised by 10% from 40% to 50% in the first ten years, followed by a slight decrease to 45% in the last year. On the contrary, although the school had paid more attention to the insurance over the years, this still took up only under one tenth of the total.
However, despite constutuing the majority in the past 20 years, the three other subjects experienced a significant fluctuation in the amount of money spent on each. For example, in 1981, 1991, 2001, the percentages of total expenditure on other staff’s renumeration, references and furniture occupied around a half in average, staying at 47% in the last year. Nevertheless, where the furniture and equipment were concerned, the figures changed dramatically in 1981, 1991, and 2001, 15%, 5% and 23% respectively. The same pattern could be pronounced in the figures for resources, especially books, just reach 9% in 2001. As regards other workers’ salaries, they saw a gradual decline in the proportion of spending. Specifically, 28% of school spending were claimed by those staff in 1981, before a reduction to 22% in 1991 and 15% in 2001, making this the third highest percent out of five subjects.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-16 | minhthanh211 | 67 | view |
| 2019-11-16 | sujoy | 73 | view |
| 2019-11-16 | sujoy | 78 | view |
| 2019-09-22 | nhaxquyeen | 89 | view |
| 2019-09-11 | wardiati | 11 | view |
- The maps demonstrate some changes of an island made by the building of tourist facilities. 84
- As the number of private cars has increased, so too has the level of pollution in many cities. What can be done to tackle this common problem? 88
- Write description of how this plastic is produced and then broken down 72
- In your opinion, who are responsible for educating children: teachers or parents? 78
- The charts give the information on the ages of population of Yemen and Italy in 2000 and projections in 2050 84
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, nevertheless, so, still, third, while, as regards, for example, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 7.0 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 7.0 5.60731707317 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 33.7804878049 145% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 3.97073170732 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1306.0 965.302439024 135% => OK
No of words: 256.0 196.424390244 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1015625 4.92477711251 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0 3.73543355544 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95323867175 2.65546596893 111% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 106.607317073 147% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.61328125 0.547539520022 112% => OK
syllable_count: 369.9 283.868780488 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.114634146341 872% => Less interrogative sentences wanted.
Article: 6.0 4.33902439024 138% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.07073170732 374% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.4926829268 111% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.8396102291 43.030603864 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.6 112.824112599 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6 22.9334400587 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.9 5.23603664747 189% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 3.70975609756 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.252084569518 0.215688989381 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0854610932301 0.103423049105 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0706389193656 0.0843802449381 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134716253803 0.15604864568 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0796322897147 0.0819641961636 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 13.2329268293 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 63.02 61.2550243902 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.3012195122 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 11.4140731707 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.06136585366 106% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 40.7170731707 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.4329268293 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.9970731707 109% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.