I appreciate that you spend your time helping with my writing. Your advice is precious and really helpful for me.

Thanks in advance.

Have a nice day!

The line graph shows the percentage of jobless people in the US and Japan from March 1993 to March 1999.
Overall, despite their different starting points, by the end of the period, these two countries shared the approximately same unemployment rate. However, while there was a downward trend in the US throughout the period, the number of unemployed people in Japan's workforce had an upward tendency.
In March 1993, there were 7 in 100 American people being out of work compared to just 2.5 people of Japan. Three years from there, the percentage of people having no jobs in Japan's workforce increased almost twofold, while the US's decreased by about 21%.
Between 1996 and 1999, the US showed subtle changes in its unemployment rate. On the other hand, Japan reached its peak in the first half of 1998 and continued to increase rapidly until 1999. At this point, the figure went up by 200% since March 1993 and stood at around 5%, equaled to the US's.

1 2

The line graph shows the unemployment rates percentage of jobless people (wrong expression) in the US and Japan from March 1993 to March 1999.


The title of the graph gives the statistic that is shown: the unemployment rate. These economic statistics have precise definitions and you should not use synonyms or other phrases because they do not have a definition.


Overall, despite their different starting points, by the end of the period, these two countries had shared the approximately the same unemployment rate. However, while there was a downward trend in the US throughout the period, the number of unemployed people in Japan's rate workforce had an upward trend tendency.


In March 1993, there were 7 in 100 American people being out of work (That is incorrect. Children, retired people and full-time students are American people but they are not counted in this statistic. The Y-axis indicates this definition. ) compared to just 2.5 in people of Japan. Three years later from there, the percentage of people having no jobs in Japan's workforce increased almost twofold, while the US's decreased by about 21%.
Between 1996 and 1999, there were small US showed subtle changes in the US its unemployment rate. On the other hand, Japan reached a its peak in the first half of 1998 and continued to increase rapidly (incorrect description. A peak is the highest value. The curve cannot increase after a peak; it can only go down, decline, drop or decrease. It can also plateau, which means it does not go down, but remains at that peak value.) until 1999. At this point, the figure went ("Figure" is not a good word to use. "Value" is good.) had gone up by 200% 100% (100% of 2.5% is 2.5%. It went up by 2.5% or 100%. Two hundred percent of 2.5% is 5%. If it had gone up by 5%, the final value would have been 7.5%) since March 1993 and stood at around 5%, equaled to the US's.


Sample essay (~180 words)


The line graph shows the unemployment rates in the US and Japan from March 1993 to March 1999.

Overall, from 1993 to 1998, the two rates were negatively correlated, that of the US decreasing and Japan increasing. However, after 1998, both of the curves had flattened out and remained within a tight range at approximately the same value.

In detail, the unemployment rate in the US started at 7%, compared to 2.5% in Japan. This gap of 4.5 percentage points rapidly narrowed and it was reduced to just 2.5% a year later, 6% in the US and a little over 3.5% in Japan. In 1996, the difference was about 1%, 5.5% in the US and just under 4.5% in Japan. In March 1998 the two were virtually the same; Japan's unemployment reaching a peak of about 5.2%. From that point until March 1999, Japan's rate sagged slightly to 5%, matching that of the US. Over the entire time span, the US unemployment rate had decreased by 2% or 28%, in contrast to Japan, where it had doubled from 2.5% to 5%.




Thanks for ur help as always. This is the first time I managed to write an essay this short and, as I assume, less focused on small details.

It was lovely to read ur feedback, but there were some points I was kind of confused about.

In March 1993, there were 7 in 100 American people being out of work => so can I write "There were 7 in 100 American's workforce being out of work"? And why the "being" was incorrect?


Thanks in advance. It was nice not to work on my own.

Have a great day!

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
NgTh. HgDAnd why the "being" was incorrect?

It is not grammatical.
The omitted words in your example are the relative pronoun "who" and the verb "were". Compare these sentences.

There were 7 in 100 Americans (who were) out of work. (dependent clause)
Seven out of every hundred Americans were out of work. (full sentence, main clause)

It is possible to use the gerund "being" to form the non-finite clause which is used as a complement of a preposition. Still, it is not necessary.

With 7 out of 100 Americans being out of work, long lines at the food pantries were commonplace. (gerund/ participle non-finite clause, complement of the preposition "with".)
With 7 out of 100 Americans out of work, long lines at the food pantries were commonplace. ("out of work" is a post-modifier of "Americans")
NgTh. HgDso can I write "There were 7 in 100 American's workforce being out of work"?

An American is one person who is a citizen of the US. People do not have a workforce.

Here are some correct sentences:

There were 7 unemployed people out of every 100 in America's workforce.
There were 7 people out of every 100 in America's workforce who were out of work.
In America's workforce, 7% were unemployed.
In America's workforce, out of every 100 people, 93 had jobs and 7 were looking for one.

I'm sorry but the whole "being" still confuses me. Do you mean if I write, In year 200x, there were 7 in 100 Americans (who were) out of work is more correct than being out of work? And why is that if you don't mind explain again? I haven't been taught clearly this at school.

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
NgTh. HgDDo you mean if I write, In year 200x, there were 7 in 100 Americans (who were) out of work is more correct than being out of work?

Yes.

“Being out of work” can be used as a noun phrase. Technically, it is a non-finite content clause.

E.g.

Being out of work causes anxiety and depression in some people.
Most people will stick with a job unhappily to avoid being out of work.
The topic for discussion this evening is “Being out of work: What can you do?”

As a modifier, it shows the current state of someone. It describes them.

Being out of work for three months, Brad was desperate.
The breadwinners of the Simpson family, being out of work, sent the children away to live with their grandparents.

The relative clause, on the other hand, defines or qualifies a group of people. I picks out certain people from others.

The ladies (who are) wearing red hats belong to the Communist Party.
The Americans (who were) out of work often begged for money.

It is a very advanced subject in English grammar. I hope these examples will help.

Frankly, I do not truly grasp the whole meaning of that. But to my way of thinking, the phrase "being out of work" here is either a noun phrase or a modifier, so if I put it behind another noun such as "7 in 100 Americans", it is simply wrong grammatically, right? And a modifier is some kind of an additional clause to support the meaning of the sentence?

Also, I do recognize I intended to use "out of work" in the first place as a way to omit the whole "who were". Thanks for helping me find out my mistake.

Have a nice day.

NgTh. HgDFrankly, I do not truly grasp the whole meaning of that.

OK, let's try a different way.

Present participle clauses are used for

1. Two or more actions happening at the same time (The first action is continuous)


Walking through the park, Tom lost his keys. = (Tom lost his keys while he was walking through the park.)

She left the room singing happily. = Singing happily, she left the room.
= (She left the room as she was singing happily.)


2. Two actions happening in sequence, action 1 followed by action 2:

Opening the envelope, I found two hundred dollar bills. = After opening the envelope, I found two hundred dollar bills.
(I opened the envelope and I found two hundred dollar bills.)

3. An action that is the result of another action
A bomb exploded, killing three people. = A bomb exploded and it killed three people.

When I entered the room, they all looked at me, making me uncomfortable.
(When I entered the room, they all looked at me and made me uncomfortable.)

4. A reason for the action in the main clause
Having done all her work, Sarah went home. = (Since Sarah had done all her work, she went home.)

Knowing a little French, I could use the public transport system in Paris. = Because I knew a little French, I was able to use the Paris public transport.

Working as salesman, I meet a lot of businessmen. = (I meet a lot of businessmen because I work as a salesman.)

Being unemployed, he gets regular payments from the government.


Your example does not follow any of these situations.

There are not two actions, and there is no reason given that these Americans are out of work.

You are just describing two classes of Americans:

7 (who are out of work) and

93 (who are working.)


The seven in 100 Americans who are out of work will receive money from the government.

"being out of work" cannot be used to replace "who are out of work".

You can use it in this sentence.

Being out of work, Tom gets money every week from his father.

Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Show more