The bar graphs below show the Riverdale Public School's spending per student in a year as well as percentages of students who passed the reading and maths tests from 1990 to 2005.
Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The bar graphs present information about Riverdale Public School System in the years 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015. The first graph indicates the spending per student and the second graph shows the percentage of pupils getting passing grades considering Reading and Math test during the same [time] period. Overall, the cost per pupil decreased significantly over the years. However, the second graph presents a slight decrease in the students results as well.
According to the data given, in 2000, the cost per pupil was $12,000. In 2005, the cost decreased $2,000 while in 2010 the cost went down $1,000 – a cost of $10,000 and around $9,000 per pupil, respectively. In 2015, the cost went down to $8,000, which represents a considerable decrease of $4,000. On the other hand, the grades reveals a [small] drop of around 5% between the years 2000 and 2015.
In conclusion, comparing both graphs, it is possible to point out a partial relation between the cost per student and the performance in Reading and Math test.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 95, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...l was 2,000. In 2005, the cost decreased ,000 while in 2010 the cost went down ,00...
^^
Line 2, column 133, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ed ,000 while in 2010 the cost went down ,000 – a cost of 0,000 and around ,000 pe...
^^
Line 2, column 167, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...t down ,000 – a cost of 0,000 and around ,000 per pupil, respectively. In 2015, th...
^^
Line 2, column 228, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ectively. In 2015, the cost went down to ,000, which represents a considerable dec...
^^
Line 2, column 278, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ch represents a considerable decrease of ,000. On the other hand, the grades revea...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, second, well, while, in conclusion, on the other hand
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: 1.0 5.60731707317 18% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 33.7804878049 80% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 836.0 965.302439024 87% => OK
No of words: 171.0 196.424390244 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.88888888889 4.92477711251 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.61617157096 3.73543355544 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4849328803 2.65546596893 94% => OK
Unique words: 98.0 106.607317073 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.573099415205 0.547539520022 105% => OK
syllable_count: 218.7 283.868780488 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.33902439024 184% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 3.36585365854 178% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.4926829268 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.838873007 43.030603864 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.8888888889 112.824112599 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 22.9334400587 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.11111111111 5.23603664747 155% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 1.69756097561 295% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 3.70975609756 81% => 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: 0.241229837121 0.215688989381 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106153304467 0.103423049105 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100635581712 0.0843802449381 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.184541477534 0.15604864568 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.137716832522 0.0819641961636 168% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 13.2329268293 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 77.57 61.2550243902 127% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 10.3012195122 70% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.08 11.4140731707 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.81 8.06136585366 97% => OK
difficult_words: 35.0 40.7170731707 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.4329268293 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.9970731707 87% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.