The provided graph outlines the yearly income of three bakeries placed in London (Barnie’s Buns, Lovely Loaves and Robbie’s Bakery), over a 10-year period from 2000 to 2010. Overall, the annual income of both Robbie's Bakery and Bernie's Buns demonstrate an upward trend, whereas the money Lovely Loaves earned per year shows a gradual decrease.
To begin with, the yearly income of Robbie's Bakery remained stable at approximately 55,000 pounds from 2000 to 2005. Subsequently, it increased dramatically to just above 100,000 pounds by the end of the graph. As for Bernie's Buns, its yearly earning began at a much lower figure of 20,000 pounds, but increased drastically (more than three times) to over 60,000 pounds by 2010. Last but not least, the income of Lovely Loaves was the highest in 2000 at around 82,000 pounds. Though, it demonstrated fluctuations in the first four years until it finally plunged to half its original figure in 2010.
In other words, the income of Robbie’s Bakery overtook that of Lovely Loaves over the years and became the highest income from 2006 to 2010, followed by that of Barnie’s Buns. Lastly, Lovely Loaves, ended up having the lowest income of all three bakeries.
- The graph shows data about the annual earnings of three bakeries in London, 2000-2010.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 11
- The graph shows data about the annual earnings of three bakeries in London, 2000-2010.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 73
- The graph shows data about the annual earnings of three bakeries in London, 2000-2010.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ned per year shows a gradual decrease. To begin with, the yearly income of Robb...
^^^
Line 3, column 475, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Though” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ighest in 2000 at around 82,000 pounds. Though, it demonstrated fluctuations in the fi...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, lastly, whereas, as for, in other words, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 1.0 7.0 14% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 7.0 5.60731707317 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 33.7804878049 115% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 3.97073170732 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1025.0 965.302439024 106% => OK
No of words: 200.0 196.424390244 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.125 4.92477711251 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.76060309309 3.73543355544 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59217572707 2.65546596893 98% => OK
Unique words: 117.0 106.607317073 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.585 0.547539520022 107% => OK
syllable_count: 292.5 283.868780488 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.4926829268 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.8930156541 43.030603864 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.888888889 112.824112599 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2222222222 22.9334400587 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.33333333333 5.23603664747 159% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 1.69756097561 118% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 3.70975609756 243% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.09268292683 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.13512392524 0.215688989381 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0613453344214 0.103423049105 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0364058738022 0.0843802449381 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100958455538 0.15604864568 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0459058583618 0.0819641961636 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.2329268293 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 61.2550243902 94% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.3012195122 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 11.4140731707 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.06136585366 101% => OK
difficult_words: 43.0 40.7170731707 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.4329268293 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.9970731707 98% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => 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.