The table illustrates the amount of money which is allocated in the US, EU and other nations used in support of technology by charities over the period from 2006 to 2010.
Overall, it is evident that most of the countries experienced an increase during the given period. Meanwhile, the US countries always accounted for the highest amount of money compared to the remaining nations.
In 2006, the number of the US started at 9.7 billions of US dollars in aid of technology, nearly triple that of EU countries with $3.3 billions. The figure of the US climbed significantly to the peak of $22.7 billions in 2010, while that of EU countries showed a similar trend to largest point of $4 billions in 2010, apart from a small fall to $3.7 billions in 2009.
Standing at $2.7 billions in the initial year, the data of other countries in the aid of technology by charities rose steadily to $3.1 billions in 2008. There was a minimal dip to $2.6 billions in the statistics of other countries in 2009 before growing to $3.3 billions in the final year. The amount of money discriminated to technology by charities in total escalated from $15.7 billions in 2006 to $30 billions in 2010.
The table illustrates the amount of money which is allocated in the US, EU and other nations used in support of technology by charities over the period from 2006 to 2010.
Overall, it is evident that most of the countries experienced an increase during the given period. Meanwhile, the US countries always accounted for the highest amount of money compared to the remaining nations.
In 2006, the number of the US started at 9.7 billions of US dollars in aid of technology, nearly triple that of EU countries with $3.3 billions. The figure of the US climbed significantly to the peak of $22.7 billions in 2010, while that of EU countries showed a similar trend to largest point of $4 billions in 2010, apart from a small fall to $3.7 billions in 2009.
Standing at $2.7 billions in the initial year, the data of other countries in the aid of technology by charities rose steadily to $3.1 billions in 2008. There was a minimal dip to $2.6 billions in the statistics of other countries in 2009 before growing to $3.3 billions in the final year. The amount of money discriminated to technology by charities in total escalated from $15.7 billions in 2006 to $30 billions in 2010.
- The table illustrates how much money was donated to developing countries in the period 2006 2010 by US and EU charities to support technological development Overall it is clear that total aid increased during this period US aid was considerably higher tha 56
- The pie charts illustrate the proportion of citizens working in three categories in two Towns in two different years 1960 and 2010 It is evident that the number of people working in sales was largest in both towns in 1960 Besides Town A and town B both sa 67
- It is true that many art galleries and historical buildings are primarily visited by people from other regions not the locals While there are several reasons to account for this phenomenon some measures should be taken to make these places more attractive 61
- The line graph illustrates the amount of money which is received by rice exports from Thailand and Vietnam during the period from 2012 to 2015 It is evident that the prices of rice exports decreased tremendously from 2012 to 2015 Meanwhile the cost remain 78
- The pie charts compare the water usage of various sectors of the economy in Sydney in two years 1997 and 2007 Overall it is clear that the sector which used the highest percentage of water was the food industry The percentage of total water use by the ser
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 44, Rule ID: CD_DOZENS_OF[1]
Message: Use a singular form of the numeral here: '7 billion'.
Suggestion: 7 billion
...2006, the number of the US started at 9.7 billions of US dollars in aid of technology, nearly...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 273, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'to the largest'.
Suggestion: to the largest
... of EU countries showed a similar trend to largest point of billions in 2010, apart from ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 292, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...owed a similar trend to largest point of billions in 2010, apart from a small fal...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, while, apart from
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 13.1623246493 23% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 7.85571142285 0% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 10.4138276553 10% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 9.0 24.0651302605 37% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 41.998997996 129% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 8.3376753507 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 952.0 1615.20841683 59% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 206.0 315.596192385 65% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.6213592233 5.12529762239 90% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.78849575616 4.20363070211 90% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73040020966 2.80592935109 97% => OK
Unique words: 103.0 176.041082164 59% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.561755894193 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 276.3 506.74238477 55% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.60771543086 81% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 5.43587174349 18% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 16.0721442886 50% => 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 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 34.4217863424 49.4020404114 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.0 106.682146367 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.75 20.7667163134 124% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.625 7.06120827912 37% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 3.9879759519 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.454479492862 0.244688304435 186% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.225037254863 0.084324248473 267% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.203694999322 0.0667982634062 305% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.336367453424 0.151304729494 222% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.229197940633 0.056905535591 403% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 13.0946893788 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 71.48 50.2224549098 142% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.3001002004 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.81 12.4159519038 79% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.02 8.58950901804 93% => OK
difficult_words: 41.0 78.4519038076 52% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum 250 words wanted.
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.