The plans show the change of a small theater in 2010 and 2012.
The two pictures illustrated how a small theater developed over 2 years from 2010.
Overall, there were extensive developments with regards to construction of facilities and area expansion in the movie during these 2 years. It is clear to see that the movie theater changed considerably with the introduction of the restaurant can be seen in the second picture.
The most striking change was the expansion of two sides on the left and right of the movie theater. The first of these was emerged for a plethora of the showers while the second one was renovated for the storage on the left. Further changes could be seen in the top of the movie, where the media were removed to make way for the hall.
In the South of the movie, the restaurants was established and replaced the admin office and the ticket office, which are relocated to the North and East. In the meantime, the stage was still in the same place. About the auditorium, there still remained 16 seats for any guests who came to the movie.
- the graph show the percentage of total music sales by mothod 70
- Competitiveness is a positive quality for people in most societies How does competitiveness affect individuals Is it a positive or negative trend 73
- The plans show the change of a small theater in 2010 and 2012 78
- The line graph below shows the production of paper wood pulp and sawn wood in the UK from 1980 to 2000 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 67
- Some school leavers travel or work for a period of time instead of going directly to university Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 226, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Further,
... renovated for the storage on the left. Further changes could be seen in the top of the...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, second, so, still, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 7.0 157% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 1.00243902439 200% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 4.0 5.60731707317 71% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 33.7804878049 80% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 3.97073170732 50% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 833.0 965.302439024 86% => OK
No of words: 178.0 196.424390244 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.6797752809 4.92477711251 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.65262427087 3.73543355544 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5247981066 2.65546596893 95% => OK
Unique words: 105.0 106.607317073 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.589887640449 0.547539520022 108% => OK
syllable_count: 255.6 283.868780488 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More 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: 19.0 22.4926829268 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.9509887716 43.030603864 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.5555555556 112.824112599 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7777777778 22.9334400587 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.44444444444 5.23603664747 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.09268292683 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.133874610708 0.215688989381 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0562904335108 0.103423049105 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0732101363245 0.0843802449381 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0918910831323 0.15604864568 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.075274352823 0.0819641961636 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.5 13.2329268293 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 61.2550243902 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 10.3012195122 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.86 11.4140731707 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.06136585366 99% => OK
difficult_words: 38.0 40.7170731707 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.4329268293 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.9970731707 87% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.0658536585 90% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.