the expenditure on fast food by income groups, UK 1990.
the bar chart compares expenditure by three income groups on three types of fast food in the UK in 1990.
Overall, while all three income groups bought fast food, there were differences in the type of fast food eaten by each group. It is also clear that the low income group spent the lowest amount.
People in the high income group spent the most money. They spent about 42 pence per week on hamburgers, and 17 and 19 pence per week on fish and chips and pizza respectively. In the average income group, consumers also spent more on hamburgers that on the other fast foods. Their spending on burgers was 33 pence per week, although fish and chips came a close second at 25 pence. The lowest expenditure was just 12 pence per week in pizza.
People spent more on fish and chips than on burgers and pizza in the low income group. However, spending was relatively low, at just 17 pence per week on fish and chips, 14 pence per week on hamburgers and 7 pence per week 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 graph compares employment rates in three sectors of the economy, in the Uk, 2000 - 2010.summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparison where relevant 73
- the table below highlight data on the number of travellers using three major British airport between 1998 and 2003 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 87
- write a report describing the info belowThe flowchart below shows the recycling process of aluminium cans. 73
- The charts below show the level of participation in education and science in developing countries and industrialised countries in 1980 and 1990 62
- The consumption of fish and some different kinds of meat. 67
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
the bar chart compares expenditure by three...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, second, so, while
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 : 9.0 6.8 132% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 33.7804878049 74% => 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: 797.0 965.302439024 83% => OK
No of words: 181.0 196.424390244 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.40331491713 4.92477711251 89% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.66791821706 3.73543355544 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.14939140176 2.65546596893 81% => OK
Unique words: 88.0 106.607317073 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.486187845304 0.547539520022 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 231.3 283.868780488 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.33902439024 46% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 3.36585365854 59% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.4926829268 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.5054380777 43.030603864 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 79.7 112.824112599 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1 22.9334400587 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.6 5.23603664747 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 3.70975609756 27% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 1.13902439024 351% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.212324850808 0.215688989381 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10958564177 0.103423049105 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.13000828704 0.0843802449381 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.193871617023 0.15604864568 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.158602491653 0.0819641961636 194% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.3 13.2329268293 63% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 78.59 61.2550243902 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.8 10.3012195122 66% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 7.94 11.4140731707 70% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.36 8.06136585366 79% => OK
difficult_words: 21.0 40.7170731707 52% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.4329268293 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.9970731707 84% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => 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.