The pie charts below depict the differences of total electricity production by fuel sources in Australia and France in the year
1980 and 2000.
The illustration revealed that half of the production of electricity in 1980 accounted for utilizing coal by 50 units, while hydro-power, natural gas and oil encompassed 20, 20 and 10 units respectively. Although oil and natural gas experienced swift declined by the year 2000 and both were liable for 2 units of electricity that created in this year, coal had a dramatic rise and reached to 130 units of total production of this energy. Similarly, hydro-power involved regarding this issue slightly increased and stood on 36 units.
On the other hand, when it comes to Franc the trend is distinctively diverse. Coal, oil and natural gas sources were production of three fourth of electricity in 1980 by 25, 20 and 25 units. However, hydro-power consumed contributed to production of 15 units and the nuclear that was a new sources of energy leaded to only 5 units of whole electricity. In this period by development in the nuclear industry, its usage became more prevalent and result in 126 units of electricity production, though coal, oil and hydro-power didn’t encountered noticeable alteration and its utilization with respect to electricity production remained stable by 25, 25 and 2 units in the year 2000 in France.
To sum up, it is manifestly demonstrated that consumption of coal in order to produce electricity had an immense growth in Australia, although nuclear-power become more well-known in France by boost to its industry.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 128, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rces in Australia and France in the year 1980 and 2000. The illustration revea...
^^^
Line 6, column 291, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'source'?
Suggestion: source
...15 units and the nuclear that was a new sources of energy leaded to only 5 units of who...
^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 217, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...own in France by boost to its industry.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, regarding, similarly, so, well, while, to sum up, with respect to, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 7.0 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 6.8 221% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 5.60731707317 232% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 47.0 33.7804878049 139% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 3.97073170732 302% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1343.0 965.302439024 139% => OK
No of words: 260.0 196.424390244 132% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16538461538 4.92477711251 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01553427287 3.73543355544 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11583804867 2.65546596893 117% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 106.607317073 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.530769230769 0.547539520022 97% => OK
syllable_count: 406.8 283.868780488 143% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.114634146341 872% => Less interrogative sentences wanted.
Article: 2.0 4.33902439024 46% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.07073170732 467% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 22.4926829268 124% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 77.8832618034 43.030603864 181% => OK
Chars per sentence: 149.222222222 112.824112599 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.8888888889 22.9334400587 126% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.3333333333 5.23603664747 216% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 1.69756097561 177% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 3.70975609756 216% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More 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: 0.236008166914 0.215688989381 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.116241075868 0.103423049105 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.116097557294 0.0843802449381 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.174527656438 0.15604864568 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.1133403581 0.0819641961636 138% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 13.2329268293 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 61.2550243902 70% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 6.51609756098 200% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 10.3012195122 138% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.3 11.4140731707 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.06136585366 111% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 40.7170731707 160% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 21.0 11.4329268293 184% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.9970731707 120% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.0658536585 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.