The three pie charts below show the changes in annual spending by a particular UK school in 1981, 1991 and 2001.
The data given in three pie chart compare changes in the shares of five different items comprising the yearly expenditure in British school between 1981 and 2001.
Overall, it is noticeable that teachers’ salaries were responsible for the largest proportion, while expenses for insurance occupied the smallest one in all charts. On the contrary, the remaining three had different figures per annum.
In 1981, educational materials as well as furniture and equipment had the same figure (15%), but while the former went up slightly by 5% before halving to just under 10%, the latter witnessed a significant drop by 2/3 and then it surged to 23% in 2001. In comparison, wages for teaching staffs made up the most significant percentage of spending in the year 1981, at 40%, and increased one fifth before reducing minimally.
Besides, insurance remained constant at an insignificant number in 1981 and 1991 before going up to 8% in 2001. The salaries for other staffs accounted for less than a third and these figures dropped by 13% over the given period.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-28 | Sandhu param | 73 | view |
| 2020-01-25 | Noah1997 | 33 | view |
| 2020-01-22 | pateldhruv1708 | 67 | view |
| 2020-01-10 | Ali Elameen | 73 | view |
| 2020-01-10 | Ali Elameen | 67 | view |
- The charts below give information on the ages of the population of Yemen and Italy in 2000 and projections for 2050. 84
- The charts below show the proportions of British students at one university in England who were able to speak other languages in addition to English, in 2000 and 2010. 61
- The pie chart below shows the main reasons why agricultural land becomes less productive. The table shows how these cause affected three regions of the world during the 1990s. 78
- The charts below show the percentage of water use for different purposes in six areas of the world. 78
- The internet has vastly increased our access to information. To what extent do you think this is a good thing? 61
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, if, so, then, third, well, while, as well as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 2.0 7.0 29% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 4.0 5.60731707317 71% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 33.7804878049 89% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 3.97073170732 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 893.0 965.302439024 93% => OK
No of words: 175.0 196.424390244 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10285714286 4.92477711251 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.63713576256 3.73543355544 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77736624616 2.65546596893 105% => OK
Unique words: 116.0 106.607317073 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.662857142857 0.547539520022 121% => OK
syllable_count: 262.8 283.868780488 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.482926829268 414% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 7.0 8.94146341463 78% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 22.4926829268 111% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.4999523174 43.030603864 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.571428571 112.824112599 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 22.9334400587 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.7142857143 5.23603664747 205% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => 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: 0.177409368026 0.215688989381 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0807361122367 0.103423049105 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0887170342472 0.0843802449381 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114541740016 0.15604864568 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.096059481101 0.0819641961636 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.2329268293 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 61.2550243902 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.3012195122 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 11.4140731707 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.21 8.06136585366 114% => OK
difficult_words: 48.0 40.7170731707 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.4329268293 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.9970731707 109% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.