The chart below shows the amount of money per week spent on fast foods in Britain
The bar chart compares Britain’s expenditure per week on three different types of junk foods including hamburgers, fish and chips, pizza from three levels of income in 1990.
Overall, budget allocation priorities for kinds of junk foods differed across the three groups, and expenditure on fast food varied based on people’s income, which meant that the high-income group spent a higher budget compared to that in the low-income group.
In terms of the high-income group, a total of approximately eighty million was spent on fast food per week, half being allocated for hamburgers (40 million), and below 20 for pizza. The average income group set aside the highest amount for hamburgers, with 32 million per week while it dedicated close to 25 million for fish and chips but assigned the smallest budget to pizza. Regarding the low-income group, the largest expenditure went fishing and chips at about 16 million, followed by hamburgers while around 6 million was spent on pizza.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-10-13 | Giang Tran | 84 | view |
| 2024-10-13 | Giang Tran | 73 | view |
| 2024-06-24 | Zahid6400 | 78 | view |
| 2024-06-24 | Zahid6400 | 73 | view |
| 2023-11-10 | Daniel3003 | 78 | view |
- The chart below shows the amount of leisure time enjoyed by men and women of different employment status 89
- The line graph below gives information about the rates of unemployment between 1991 and 2005 in three different countries in Europe The table shows the percentage of men and women in the workforce in these three countries 73
- The graph below shows the unemployment rates in the US and Japan between March 1993 and March 1999 79
- The line graph shows the percentage of New Zealand s population from 1950 to 2050 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 84
- The chart below shows the percentage of the population in the UK who consumed the recommended daily amount of fruit and vegetables in 2002 2006 and 2010 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, regarding, while
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 : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 3.0 5.60731707317 54% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 33.7804878049 74% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 3.97073170732 25% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 827.0 965.302439024 86% => OK
No of words: 160.0 196.424390244 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16875 4.92477711251 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.55655882008 3.73543355544 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66486837151 2.65546596893 100% => OK
Unique words: 97.0 106.607317073 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.60625 0.547539520022 111% => OK
syllable_count: 237.6 283.868780488 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.482926829268 414% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 5.0 8.94146341463 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: 32.0 22.4926829268 142% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 34.7701020994 43.030603864 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 165.4 112.824112599 147% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.0 22.9334400587 140% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.23603664747 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 3.70975609756 27% => More positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.220660450181 0.215688989381 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126232682097 0.103423049105 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0645408879501 0.0843802449381 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.150605865029 0.15604864568 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0318166122147 0.0819641961636 39% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.9 13.2329268293 143% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.46 61.2550243902 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 10.3012195122 142% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.3 11.4140731707 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.78 8.06136585366 109% => OK
difficult_words: 36.0 40.7170731707 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 11.4329268293 162% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.8 10.9970731707 135% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 11.0658536585 172% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.