The diagrams below show two methods of collecting water for irrigation purposes Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features ad make comparisons where relevant

Essay topics:

The diagrams below show two methods of collecting water for irrigation purposes.Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features ad make comparisons where relevant

The pictures below show the comparison between two methods of cultivating crops by swing basket with rope and bucket technique.

To begin with, both process used specific technique to irrigate the field. In swing basket process, two farmers would bring a basket made of bamboo or leather which is water resistant in every side. Next, both farmers hold the ropes which are connected to the basket. Moreover, when they start to dig water under one to two meters, they will through the basket put the water. After, they push the water up and move it into irrigation channel. The crops are ready to be cultivated.

Differently, the next method is used animal energy such as buffalo or cow. This energy is transported by placing a metal round in cow’s body which is tightening by rope to the next pump. To start with, this method is used to dig water in deep wall under fifty meters. Further, new equipment is built in the tap of wall and consist of rollers and pulley from metal. All of the rollers, pulley, bucket and cow are connected by tight ropes. It is started when the bucket through to deep wall, the water come inside. Then, cow will draw the rollers and pulley to put up the bucket filled water. Next, in the tap wall, the bucket will pour the water immediately through irrigation channel.

To sum up, both of the pictures show naturally water irrigation process by using human and animal energy. After all, these methods are used to different place of water on.

Votes
Average: 7.6 (17 votes)
Essay Categories

Comments

they will through the basket put the water.
they will put the water through the basket.

the next method is used animal energy
the next method used animal energy

flaws:
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.294 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 3.922 7.5
No. of Words: 260 200

Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 6.0 out of 9
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 10
No. of Words: 260 200
No. of Characters: 1172 1000
No. of Different Words: 123 100
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.016 4.0
Average Word Length: 4.508 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.171 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 70 60
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 45 50
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 23 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 18 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.294 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 3.922 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.412 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.337 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.516 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.087 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4