The proportion of different type of families living in poverty
The table demonstrates the proportion of different type of families living in poverty in Austalia in 1999. There are six categories of families, include single aged person, aged couple, single no children, couple no children,sole parent and couple with children.
As can be seen from the chart, sole parent and single no children had the largest percentage of poor people,with 21% and 19% respectively. At the bottom is single aged person, aged couple and couple no children, which takes up 4%~7%. However, couple with children have the same proportion as all households, closer to 12%,.
When we compare with the single family types, we can easily find that single no children and sole parent are easier to fall into poverty. And aged people, whether single or couple, the proportion of poverty is very low. For couple families, compared no children, with children has a higher percentage of poverty.
To sum up, households of single people and those with children were more likely to be living in poverty than those consisting of couples.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The table demonstrates the proportion of...
^^^^
Line 1, column 229, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , sole
..., single no children, couple no children,sole parent and couple with children. A...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...,sole parent and couple with children. As can be seen from the chart, sole pare...
^^^^
Line 2, column 112, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , with
...ad the largest percentage of poor people,with 21% and 19% respectively. At the bottom...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ion as all households, closer to 12%,. When we compare with the single family t...
^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...en has a higher percentage of poverty. To sum up, households of single people a...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, so, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 7.0 100% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 1.00243902439 200% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 6.8 118% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 33.7804878049 80% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 874.0 965.302439024 91% => OK
No of words: 172.0 196.424390244 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08139534884 4.92477711251 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.62144681703 3.73543355544 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6411223584 2.65546596893 99% => OK
Unique words: 95.0 106.607317073 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.552325581395 0.547539520022 101% => OK
syllable_count: 267.3 283.868780488 94% => 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: 2.0 4.33902439024 46% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => 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: 25.7681974535 43.030603864 60% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 97.1111111111 112.824112599 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1111111111 22.9334400587 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.88888888889 5.23603664747 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 1.69756097561 353% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 3.70975609756 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 1.13902439024 702% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.09268292683 24% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.169845618274 0.215688989381 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.114612210108 0.103423049105 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.1989085513 0.0843802449381 236% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123725743833 0.15604864568 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0904441561459 0.0819641961636 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.2329268293 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 61.2550243902 85% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.3012195122 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 11.4140731707 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.61 8.06136585366 94% => OK
difficult_words: 33.0 40.7170731707 81% => More difficult words wanted.
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: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.