Expenditure on fast food by income groups, UK 1990
The bar chart illustrates the consumption of three food products by three economic classes in the UK in 1990.
Generally, the three income classes purchased fast food, but the kinds of junk food consumed by each group differed. Obviously, the low-income group spent the least among the three groups.
According to the data given, high-income people paid the highest amount of money for fast food. Hamburgers made up roughly 43 pence per week of the total, while the money spent on fish and chips was about 17 pence, and 19 pence was for pizza. The average-income group spent less money than the high-come group. Furthermore, the percentage of purchased hamburgers was nearly 33 pence per week, followed by fish and chips (approximately 25 pence) and pizza (about 13 pence), respectively.
On the other hand, people who have the lowest income were seen to spend the least amount of money on fast food and the other two groups. Fish and chips were paid the most money among three categories by this group (roughly 17 pence), and then nearly 15 pence and 7 pence were paid for hamburgers and pizza, correspondingly.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-11-16 | Trần Ánh Vy | 67 | view |
| 2024-09-27 | Sheikh Sajib | 67 | view |
| 2024-09-27 | Sheikh Sajib | 78 | view |
| 2024-09-27 | Sheikh Sajib | 61 | view |
| 2024-06-26 | meoconxinhxan | 70 | view |
- Oversea visitors to three different areas of a European country between 1987 and 2007
- Some educationalists say that every child should be taught how to play a musical instrument To what extent do you agree or disagree 78
- Some people believe that unpaid community service should be a compulsory part of high school programmers for example working for a charity improving the neighbourhood or teaching sports to younger children To what extent do you agree or disagree Give reas 84
- The first chart below shows how energy is used in an average Australian household The second chart shows the greenhouse gas emissions which result from this energy use
- Sources of energy produced in USA in 1980 and 1990
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, if, then, while, as for, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 7.0 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 6.8 147% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 1.0 5.60731707317 18% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 33.7804878049 65% => 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: 923.0 965.302439024 96% => OK
No of words: 189.0 196.424390244 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8835978836 4.92477711251 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.70779275107 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61582293063 2.65546596893 99% => OK
Unique words: 98.0 106.607317073 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.518518518519 0.547539520022 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 264.6 283.868780488 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.482926829268 621% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 3.36585365854 59% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.4926829268 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.8386977697 43.030603864 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.555555556 112.824112599 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 22.9334400587 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.66666666667 5.23603664747 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
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: 7.0 4.09268292683 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.277999110211 0.215688989381 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.136076188074 0.103423049105 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100031512019 0.0843802449381 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.187837674696 0.15604864568 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0792704035741 0.0819641961636 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.2329268293 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 67.08 61.2550243902 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 10.3012195122 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.02 11.4140731707 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.44 8.06136585366 92% => OK
difficult_words: 33.0 40.7170731707 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.4329268293 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.9970731707 95% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => 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.