The graphs represent the number of students in the UK who was financed by the administration from 1991 to 2001 and think about the extent of understudies from various family financial stages in 1991.
The charts illustrate the number of undergraduates in the UK who was financed by the government from 1991 to 2001 and compare the proportion of students from different family economic platforms in 1991.
Looking at the graphs, it is immediately obvious that the majority of undergrad came from middle-income families. Also, in contrast to the increased number of university students, the government's expenditure became less and less toward the end of the period.
The percentage of pupils whose family financial background fell into the middle-income category was the highest with over 60%, nearly twice as much as that of students from high-income families. Meanwhile, just 8% of UK undergraduates were from families with low-income in 1991.
There was a strong rise in the number of undergrads from over one million in 1991 to more than two million in 1999. Then this figure experienced a slight decrease to exactly 2000000 two years later. Despite the overall increase in students number, government budgets allocated to support those students fall substantially from about 6500 pounds to around 4700 pounds, the reduce 1200 pounds only in 5 years. After that, the figure experienced relatively unchanged until the end of the period.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 185, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'governments'' or 'government's'?
Suggestion: governments'; government's
...ased number of university students, the governments expenditure became less and less toward...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 369, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...bout 6500 pounds to around 4700 pounds, the reduce 1200 pounds only in 5 years. After that...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, look, so, then, while, in contrast, in contrast to
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 : 2.0 6.8 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 33.7804878049 133% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1049.0 965.302439024 109% => OK
No of words: 197.0 196.424390244 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32487309645 4.92477711251 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.74642080493 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93782794836 2.65546596893 111% => OK
Unique words: 121.0 106.607317073 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.61421319797 0.547539520022 112% => OK
syllable_count: 309.6 283.868780488 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.4926829268 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.8518793682 43.030603864 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.555555556 112.824112599 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8888888889 22.9334400587 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.66666666667 5.23603664747 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 1.69756097561 118% => 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: 5.0 4.09268292683 122% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.354159384605 0.215688989381 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.133082521916 0.103423049105 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.136800412951 0.0843802449381 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.22496597085 0.15604864568 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.146978666348 0.0819641961636 179% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 13.2329268293 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 61.2550243902 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.3012195122 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 11.4140731707 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.06136585366 106% => OK
difficult_words: 48.0 40.7170731707 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.4329268293 127% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.9970731707 95% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.0658536585 136% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.