The bar chart below shows the money spent per week on public transport by age group in Malaysia in the year 2008.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The bar chart illustarates the expenditure weekly on public vehicle different age groups in Malaysia throughout the year 2008.
Overall, it is clear that all age groups spent the most money on taxis. The younger age group, those under 65, spent considerably more on public transportation than over 65. The older people get, the less they spend.
To begin with, the youngest, those under 30, spent about 6.3 pounds per weeks on taxis. The group 30-50 spent almost as much, and those 50-65 marginally less, around 5.9 pounds. In contrast, the expenditure on public transportation almost halved at the age of 65-75 and the eldest group spent only 1.8 pounds weekly.
Moving on to rail, the youngest group allotted the second for this form of transport, nearly 4 pounds weekly. The two groups covering 30-65 years averaged appoximately 2.3 pounds while the eldest group spent about half than the former.
Interestingly, bus accounted for the smallest proportation of the transportation budget for all age groups.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-10-30 | dbflqud88 | 84 | view |
| 2021-08-06 | Tabassum Zaman | 67 | view |
- Many people believe that the increasing gap between rich and poor people has a negative impact on society What are the reasons for rising inequality and what problems could it cause 56
- Many people believe that the increasing gap between rich and poor people has a negative impact on society What are the reasons for rising inequality and what problems could it cause 61
- Many people believe that the increasing gap between rich and poor people has a negative impact on society What are the reasons for rising inequality and what problems could it cause 56
- The bar chart below shows the money spent per week on public transport by age group in Malaysia in the year 2008 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 84
- Many people believe that the increasing gap between rich and poor people has a negative impact on society What are the reasons for rising inequality and what problems could it cause 56
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, second, while, in contrast, to begin with
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 : 2.0 6.8 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 7.0 5.60731707317 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 22.0 33.7804878049 65% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 3.97073170732 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 856.0 965.302439024 89% => OK
No of words: 165.0 196.424390244 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.18787878788 4.92477711251 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.58402463422 3.73543355544 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69414220186 2.65546596893 101% => OK
Unique words: 103.0 106.607317073 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.624242424242 0.547539520022 114% => OK
syllable_count: 229.5 283.868780488 81% => 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
Article: 9.0 4.33902439024 207% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.4926829268 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 27.1449811199 43.030603864 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.6 112.824112599 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.5 22.9334400587 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5 5.23603664747 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 3.83414634146 130% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.09268292683 195% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.269002447995 0.215688989381 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.114714827951 0.103423049105 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0845811359143 0.0843802449381 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164725389124 0.15604864568 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0899282985477 0.0819641961636 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 13.2329268293 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 72.16 61.2550243902 118% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 10.3012195122 70% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 11.4140731707 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.3 8.06136585366 91% => OK
difficult_words: 30.0 40.7170731707 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.4329268293 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.9970731707 76% => OK
text_standard: 7.0 11.0658536585 63% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
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.