the picture show information about average income and spending on food and clothes by an average family in a city in the UK.
The table compares the lever of expenditure British earning for living and the amount of money they spent on food and clothes, while the bar charts illustrate the percentage of expense on those daily categories in a family on average over a three year period from 2010 to 2013.
Overall, there was a dramatic downward trend in the level of income while this figure for amount of expense they spent on food and clothes increased slightly. Another interesting point is that the food took a bigger proportion in the British people’s budget in comparison with clothes figure.
Looking at details, in 2010 each family in Britain on averaged earned 29000 for living and they spent nearly half of that amount of money on food and clothes. Meanwhile, the level of income in 2013 fell enormously to 25000, this figure for spending on food and clothes rise slightly by 1000.
On the other hand, in 2010 the expenditure on meat and fish and fruit and vegetable made up the majority in the total, by 26% and 29% in turn. However, in the next three year, while the percentage of money people paying for meat and fished dropped by 6%, this figure for fruit and vegetables went up to exactly 30%. Clothes and daily products also witness a contrast trend. Their figure in 2010 were 15% and 12% respectively, but in 2013, percentage of family budget paid for daily products reach 16% as opposed to 2% decrease in the figure for clothes. The money people spent on other food stayed unchanged at 18% over the period given.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-06-09 | vuhungbo | 61 | view |
| 2023-06-09 | vuhungbo | 61 | view |
| 2022-12-14 | Johndavisvu | 67 | view |
| 2021-03-28 | Narges.s | 72 | view |
| 2020-02-21 | Nguyen Manh Dung | 72 | view |
- moving from rural areas to big cities 78
- The map below show the changes to an art gallery floor plan in 2005 and the present day 68
- The chart below shows a comparison of different kinds of energy production in France in 1995 and 2005. 73
- The graph below compares changes in the birth rates of China and the USA between1920 and 2000.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and makecomparisons where relevant. 67
- the picture show information about average income and spending on food and clothes by an average family in a city in the UK 81
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, look, so, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 7.0 43% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 6.8 221% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 10.0 5.60731707317 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 33.7804878049 145% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 3.97073170732 25% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1249.0 965.302439024 129% => OK
No of words: 265.0 196.424390244 135% => OK
Chars per words: 4.71320754717 4.92477711251 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03470204552 3.73543355544 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4039068711 2.65546596893 91% => OK
Unique words: 134.0 106.607317073 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.505660377358 0.547539520022 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 370.8 283.868780488 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.4926829268 116% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.9020572072 43.030603864 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.9 112.824112599 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.5 22.9334400587 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.4 5.23603664747 103% => OK
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 : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.09268292683 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.148284074083 0.215688989381 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0655016024713 0.103423049105 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.048783048047 0.0843802449381 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113150525461 0.15604864568 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0581013966135 0.0819641961636 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.2329268293 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 62.01 61.2550243902 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.3012195122 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.33 11.4140731707 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.85 8.06136585366 97% => OK
difficult_words: 49.0 40.7170731707 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.4329268293 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.9970731707 113% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.0658536585 127% => 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.