The table below shows the proportion of different categories of families living in poverty in Australia in 1999.
summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The given table compares the percentage of different categories of families such as single aged person, aged couple, single, no children, couple, no children, sole parent, couple with children and all households living in poverty in Australia in 1999.
Overall, it can be seen that while sole parent constituted the highest proportion, aged couple represented the least total. It is interesting to note that the difference between single aged person and couple was extremely marginal. Likewise, the distinction in the proportion was almost similar for couple with children and all households.
In detail, sole parent headed the list with 21% (232,000), which was thrice as many as couple, no children at 7% (211,000). Next on the list was single, no children with 19% (359,000), making it approximately three times higher than the single aged person at 6% (54,000). Ranked in third place was couple with children at 12% (933,000), just ahead of all couples at 11% (1,837,000).
Turning to aged couple, who stood at 4% (48,000), was nowhere near as large as the sole parent (21%).
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
'all households' means the general poverty level. read a sample:
The table gives information about poverty rates among six types of household in Australia in the year 1999.
It is noticeable that levels of poverty were higher for single people than for couples, and people with children were more likely to be poor than those without. Poverty rates were considerably lower among elderly people.
Overall, 11% of Australians, or 1,837,000 people, were living in poverty in 1999. Aged people were the least likely to be poor, with poverty levels of 6% and 4% for single aged people and aged couples respectively.
Just over one fifth of single parents were living in poverty, whereas only 12% of parents living with a partner were classed as poor. The same pattern can be seen for people with no children: while 19% of single people in this group were living below the poverty line, the figure for couples was much lower, at only 7%.
-----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.5 out of 9
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 8 10
No. of Words: 176 200
No. of Characters: 851 1000
No. of Different Words: 99 100
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.642 4.0
Average Word Length: 4.835 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.527 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 70 60
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 39 50
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 27 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 16 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.946 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.476 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.715 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.084 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 341, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ouple with children and all households. In detail, sole parent headed the list w...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, likewise, so, third, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 7.0 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 6.8 44% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 33.7804878049 71% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 3.97073170732 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 897.0 965.302439024 93% => OK
No of words: 176.0 196.424390244 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09659090909 4.92477711251 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.64232057368 3.73543355544 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60774409925 2.65546596893 98% => OK
Unique words: 104.0 106.607317073 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.590909090909 0.547539520022 108% => OK
syllable_count: 249.3 283.868780488 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.33902439024 46% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 3.36585365854 30% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.4926829268 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.013129815 43.030603864 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.125 112.824112599 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 22.9334400587 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.875 5.23603664747 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 3.70975609756 27% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 1.13902439024 263% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.0674320600782 0.215688989381 31% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0311888144422 0.103423049105 30% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.05038367628 0.0843802449381 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0504982796984 0.15604864568 32% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0637799159501 0.0819641961636 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.2329268293 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 66.07 61.2550243902 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 10.3012195122 92% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 11.4140731707 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.78 8.06136585366 97% => OK
difficult_words: 34.0 40.7170731707 84% => More difficult words wanted.
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?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 11.2359550562 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.