the expenditure on fast food by income groups, UK 1990.
The bar chart indicates how much three income groups spent on three types of fast food in the UK in 1990.
Overall, It is obvious that the expenditure on each type of fast food was different in each income group. Another interesting point is that the low income group spent the least money on fast food.
People in the high income group spent the most money. In particularly, hamburger accounted for about 42 pence per week, which was over double the money spending on fish and chips, and 17 pence per week spent on pizza. If we look at the average income group, hamburger also saw a higher amount of budget that the consumers spent on than the other types, at 32 pence per week, compared with 25 pence per week on fish and chips and 12 pence per week on pizza.
Regarding expenditure of the low income group, people spent more money on fish and chips than on hamburger and Pizza. However, their spending was relatively low, at 17 pence per week on fish and chips, 14 pence per week on humburger and only 7 pence per week per on pizza.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-09-27 | Sheikh Sajib | 67 | view |
| 2024-09-27 | Sheikh Sajib | 78 | view |
| 2024-09-27 | Sheikh Sajib | 61 | view |
| 2023-09-25 | mbn250 | 11 | view |
| 2023-07-10 | hxyav | 56 | view |
- the charts show the number of marriages and divorces in the USA, 1970-2000 and Marital status of adults Americans, 1970 and 2000. 73
- the pie charts show the online shopping sales for retail sectors in Canada in 2005 and 2010. 73
- the graph below shows predictions about the numbers of people who will study three major world languages between 2020 and 2030 summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 85
- the expenditure on fast food by income groups, UK 1990. 61
- the graph shows UK acid rain emissions, from 4 different sectors between 1990 to 2007. 67
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, look, regarding, so, in particular
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 7.0 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 6.8 118% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 33.7804878049 86% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 3.97073170732 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 847.0 965.302439024 88% => OK
No of words: 192.0 196.424390244 98% => OK
Chars per words: 4.41145833333 4.92477711251 90% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.72241943641 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.17376017305 2.65546596893 82% => OK
Unique words: 92.0 106.607317073 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.479166666667 0.547539520022 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 250.2 283.868780488 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.4926829268 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.7362245046 43.030603864 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.875 112.824112599 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 22.9334400587 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.625 5.23603664747 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
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 : 2.0 1.13902439024 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.09268292683 122% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.184499780167 0.215688989381 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.125142940507 0.103423049105 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.113836264597 0.0843802449381 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.175548634814 0.15604864568 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.133884826037 0.0819641961636 163% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 13.2329268293 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 72.5 61.2550243902 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 10.3012195122 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 8.59 11.4140731707 75% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.8 8.06136585366 84% => OK
difficult_words: 24.0 40.7170731707 59% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.4329268293 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.9970731707 105% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.