The pie charts below show the average household expenditures in Japan and Malaysia in the year 2010.
The pie charts depict information about the household spendings on five different categories in Malaysia and Japan in 2010.
Overall, the emerging fact from the chart is that both nations spend the highest amount of currency mainly on three sectors, namely housing, food and other goods and services. The expenditure on health care and transport in Japan was double the figure for Malaysia.
Looking in more details at housing in Malaysia, the largest proportion of funds was used, which accounted for 34%, while in Japan the figure for this category for just 21%. Japanese householders outlay the enormous amount of cash on other services and goods, at 29%. Meanwhile, the rate for paying out for this category in Malaysia was slightly lower, at 26%.
Marching forward, in terms of food, the expenses of both regions, Malaysia and Japan were relatively similar, which experienced 24% and 27% respectively. However, the outlay on transport and health care sectors in Japan accounted for 20% and 6%, which was double the figure for Malaysia and Japan, at 10% and 3% respectively.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-12-18 | vuongthaolinh | 85 | view |
| 2023-09-30 | huongab123 | view | |
| 2023-06-19 | mykhanh | 78 | view |
| 2023-05-07 | saminhsn | view | |
| 2023-01-14 | Kaito Mori | view |
- The line graph shows the customers in four restaurants between 1990 and 2015 89
- Many young people today choose or are forced to go and work abroad What are the advantages disadvantages of living and working in a foreign country compared with living and working in your own country Discuss both views and give your own opinion 84
- The pie charts below show the average household expenditures in Japan and Malaysia in the year 2010 78
- The table below gives information about the average annual spending of University students in three countries 78
- The chart below shows the amount of leisure time enjoyed by men and women of different employment status
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, look, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 7.0 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 6.8 162% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 3.0 5.60731707317 54% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 33.7804878049 77% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 3.97073170732 50% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 911.0 965.302439024 94% => OK
No of words: 177.0 196.424390244 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.14689265537 4.92477711251 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.64748333727 3.73543355544 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60474648817 2.65546596893 98% => OK
Unique words: 102.0 106.607317073 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.576271186441 0.547539520022 105% => OK
syllable_count: 265.5 283.868780488 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.33902439024 161% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.4926829268 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.1317035303 43.030603864 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.875 112.824112599 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.125 22.9334400587 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.0 5.23603664747 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 3.70975609756 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.09268292683 98% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.210791035312 0.215688989381 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.109105842378 0.103423049105 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0957480971215 0.0843802449381 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164668243431 0.15604864568 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.102283090617 0.0819641961636 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.2329268293 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 61.2550243902 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.3012195122 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 11.4140731707 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.06136585366 112% => OK
difficult_words: 48.0 40.7170731707 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.9970731707 98% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => 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.