The table shows the amount of money given in aid of technology of developing countries by charities in the US, EU and other countries from 2006 to 2010.
The table illustrates the quantity of money donated to developing countries in the period 2006-2010, by the US, EU and other countries, to support technological development.
Overall, it is apparent that in each country, the total aid tended to increase gradually in the period 2006-2010. The US charity gave most money in aid of technology of the third world.
According to the table, there was a gradual rise in the total donation, which rose significantly by 14.3 billions of US dollars, from 15.7 to 30.0 billions of dollars, between 2006 and 2010. Major share of the total donation was belong to the US charity, which was approximately two-third in 2006 and over two-third in 2010.
In contrast, contributions in aid of technology of developing by EU countries and other countries were much lower. In 2006, EU countries contributed 3.3 billions of dollars, compared to 2,7 billions of dollars of other countries. In 2010, the share of total aid from EU countries was 4.0, compared to exactly 3.3 billions of dollars in other countries.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-22 | wardiati | 78 | view |
| 2019-10-15 | khoavodoj | 78 | view |
| 2019-10-08 | koinoyokan | 84 | view |
| 2019-08-28 | oxfordpro111 | 78 | view |
| 2019-08-10 | JennieD | 67 | view |
- Manifacture bricks for the building industry 84
- many people disagree with a school policy which forces children to learn new languages. 78
- The pie charts below show how dangerous waste products are dealt with in three countries. 78
- table agr group rode bicycles in 2011 73
- The table shows the amount of money given in aid of technology of developing countries by charities in the US, EU and other countries from 2006 to 2010. 67
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 104, Rule ID: CD_DOZENS_OF[1]
Message: Use a singular form of the numeral here: '3 billion'.
Suggestion: 3 billion
...onation, which rose significantly by 14.3 billions of US dollars, from 15.7 to 30.0 billions ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 146, Rule ID: CD_DOZENS_OF[1]
Message: Use a singular form of the numeral here: '0 billion'.
Suggestion: 0 billion
...billions of US dollars, from 15.7 to 30.0 billions of dollars, between 2006 and 2010. Major s...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 229, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'belonged'.
Suggestion: belonged
.... Major share of the total donation was belong to the US charity, which was approximat...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 151, Rule ID: CD_DOZENS_OF[1]
Message: Use a singular form of the numeral here: '3 billion'.
Suggestion: 3 billion
...er. In 2006, EU countries contributed 3.3 billions of dollars, compared to 2,7 billions of do...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 188, Rule ID: CD_DOZENS_OF[1]
Message: Use a singular form of the numeral here: '7 billion'.
Suggestion: 7 billion
... 3.3 billions of dollars, compared to 2,7 billions of dollars of other countries. In 2010, th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 230, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...billions of dollars of other countries. In 2010, the share of total aid from EU co...
^^
Line 4, column 311, Rule ID: CD_DOZENS_OF[1]
Message: Use a singular form of the numeral here: '3 billion'.
Suggestion: 3 billion
...ountries was 4.0, compared to exactly 3.3 billions of dollars in other countries.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, third, in contrast
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 : 4.0 6.8 59% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 33.7804878049 118% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 871.0 965.302439024 90% => OK
No of words: 173.0 196.424390244 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.03468208092 4.92477711251 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.62669911048 3.73543355544 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96803782909 2.65546596893 112% => OK
Unique words: 85.0 106.607317073 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.491329479769 0.547539520022 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 246.6 283.868780488 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 3.36585365854 238% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.4926829268 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.9848181359 43.030603864 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.875 112.824112599 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.625 22.9334400587 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.375 5.23603664747 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 1.69756097561 412% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 3.70975609756 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.09268292683 49% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.465857981537 0.215688989381 216% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.230419006417 0.103423049105 223% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.128506122584 0.0843802449381 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.300155662287 0.15604864568 192% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.132471287912 0.0819641961636 162% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 13.2329268293 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 67.08 61.2550243902 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 10.3012195122 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 11.4140731707 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.06136585366 102% => OK
difficult_words: 39.0 40.7170731707 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.9970731707 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.