The three pie charts below show the change in annual spending by a particular UK school in 1981, 1991 and 2001.
The pie charts illustrate the disparity in annual expenditure in a specific school in three years including 1981, 1991 and 2001.
School spent much of the funding to pay teachers' wages whereas the cost of insurance only took into account a small fraction, generally.
In particular, in 1981, money using to pay salary for the teachers is 40%. That percentage rose into a half of the total annual consumption in 1991, and by 2001, it accounted for only 45%. The amount of money paid for the cost of insurance was the least, but this percentage rose each decade. By 2001, the proportion of expense on insurance was 8%. The percentage of payment on other workers' payroll, on the other hand, decreased by every decade, from 28% in 1981to 15% in 2001.
The cash consumed on resources as well as furniture and equipment changed depending on the requirement of the decades. The two categories accounted for the same proportion of expenditure in 1981 while in the percentage of money spent on resources was higher and lower than the other in 1991 and 2001 respectively.
- Some people think that we should invent a new language for international communication. Do the benefits of this outweigh the problems? 73
- Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement 84
- The graph below shows the percentage of Australian exports to 4 countries from 1990 to 2012 87
- The graphs below show information about electronic games in South Korea in 2003. 73
- Countries are becoming more and more similar because people are able to buy the same products anywhere in the world Do you think this is a positive or negative development 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 385, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'workers'' or 'worker's'?
Suggestion: workers'; worker's
... 8%. The percentage of payment on other workers payroll, on the other hand, decreased b...
^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 120, 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.
...ding on the requirement of the decades. The two categories accounted for the same p...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, so, well, whereas, while, in particular, as well as, on the other hand
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: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 3.0 5.60731707317 54% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 33.7804878049 104% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 3.97073170732 252% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 888.0 965.302439024 92% => OK
No of words: 183.0 196.424390244 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.85245901639 4.92477711251 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.67800887145 3.73543355544 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70466963589 2.65546596893 102% => OK
Unique words: 100.0 106.607317073 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.546448087432 0.547539520022 100% => OK
syllable_count: 261.9 283.868780488 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.33902439024 138% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.482926829268 414% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.4926829268 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.2081233663 43.030603864 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.6666666667 112.824112599 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3333333333 22.9334400587 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.77777777778 5.23603664747 168% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 1.69756097561 118% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 3.70975609756 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 1.13902439024 176% => OK
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: 0.237023737083 0.215688989381 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100349948608 0.103423049105 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.11330242851 0.0843802449381 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164862322673 0.15604864568 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.141134467637 0.0819641961636 172% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.2329268293 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 68.1 61.2550243902 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 10.3012195122 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.85 11.4140731707 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.91 8.06136585366 98% => OK
difficult_words: 38.0 40.7170731707 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.9970731707 91% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => 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.