The pie charts below show the average household expenditures in Japan and Malaysia in the year 2010.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The presented pie charts compare Japan and Malaysia citizens in terms of how they distributed their incomes among 5 counterparts in 2010.
Overall, healthcare, food as well as other goods and services accounted were three categories into which residents channeled most proportions of their budget in both nations. However, discernible differences were witnessed in the figures for individual item.
Turning into detail, Malaysian people spent 34% of their budgets on housing, while the rate of Japanese was considerably lower, with 21%. By contrast, expenditure for transport occupied 20% of domestic income in Japan, which was two times higher than a 10-per-cent rate in Malaysia.
Regarding to remaining categories, a gap of 3% between the figures for same items in both countries can be observed. Indeed, with 29% and 6%, respectively, other goods and services, along with healthcare, accounted for higher percentages of total income in Japan than they did in Malaysia. By contrast, a 24-per-cent proportion occupied by food in Japan was slightly lower than its percentage in Malaysia, which was 27%.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-04-03 | phuong cao | 78 | view |
| 2019-04-03 | phuong cao | 78 | view |
| 2019-04-03 | phuong cao | 78 | view |
| 2019-04-03 | phuong cao | 78 | view |
| 2019-04-03 | phuong cao | 78 | view |
- Organized tours to remote places and communities is increasingly popular Is it a positive or negative development for the local people and environment 10
- The line graph shows the number of enquiries received by the Tourist Information Office in one city over a 6-month period in 2011.Summarize the information by selecting and reporting main features, and make comparison where relevant. 89
- The pie charts below show the average household expenditures in Japan and Malaysia in the year 2010.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 78
- Many people think studying in university is a waste of time and money. They are supposed that young people should work for real experience. Do you agree or disagree? 84
- The table below shows the number of cars produced in 3 countries between 2003 and 2009. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, regarding, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 7.0 100% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 6.8 59% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 33.7804878049 92% => 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: 943.0 965.302439024 98% => OK
No of words: 172.0 196.424390244 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.48255813953 4.92477711251 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.62144681703 3.73543355544 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96228204717 2.65546596893 112% => OK
Unique words: 113.0 106.607317073 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.656976744186 0.547539520022 120% => OK
syllable_count: 277.2 283.868780488 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 3.36585365854 178% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.4926829268 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 27.4951700304 43.030603864 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.875 112.824112599 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5 22.9334400587 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5 5.23603664747 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 1.13902439024 176% => 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: 0.0924805253772 0.215688989381 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0424846166697 0.103423049105 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0530501960751 0.0843802449381 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0677149552244 0.15604864568 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0578286481087 0.0819641961636 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.2329268293 114% => 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: 14.5 11.4140731707 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.09 8.06136585366 125% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 40.7170731707 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.4329268293 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.9970731707 95% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => 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.