Every year several languages die out. Some people think this is not important because life will be easier if there are fewer languages.
Creating a new language for communicating has been a heated debate since the beginning of globalization. However, I support the idea that a transnational linguistic just for exchanging problems is not a practical solution.
On the one hand, time consumption is the most crucial barrier to this new language. Formulating a unique language takes lots of researchers' time due to the various cultures worldwide. An international language requires an available approach from every citizen living on the planet. Therefore, researchers have to create a linguistic which has a transcultural quality. Not only do the researchers waste time in formulating, but also learners have to spend time learning this exclusive language. There are many possible choices like English or Chinese for them to learn rather than this new language. Rather than spending hours on this new language, people can utilize time more efficiently by updating social news or researching deeply in a specific field that could liven their living up.
On the other hand, using the same language for communication will be easy for us to contact foreigners. This development in the linguistic field could help people from different nations have a mutual voice easier. Furthermore, multinational businesses can cut off an enormous amount of funding spent on interpreting. Translating word-by-word may have some minor errors throughout the conversation. However, other existing languages, like English, also have the ability to solve this interpreting problem.
- The pie charts below show the comparison of different kinds of energy production in France in two years 78
- Every year several languages die out Some people think this is not important because life will be easier if there are fewer languages 56
- The plans below show a public park when it first opened in 1920 and the same park today Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 61
- The diagram below shows the development of cutting tools in the Stone Age 73
- The graph below gives information from the 2008 report about the consumption of energy in the USA with projections from 1980 until 2030 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, may, so, therefore, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 13.1623246493 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 10.4138276553 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 24.0651302605 50% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 41.998997996 67% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1288.0 1615.20841683 80% => OK
No of words: 233.0 315.596192385 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.52789699571 5.12529762239 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.90696013833 4.20363070211 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17461982852 2.80592935109 113% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 176.041082164 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.648068669528 0.561755894193 115% => OK
syllable_count: 405.0 506.74238477 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.2975951904 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 25.5834967532 49.4020404114 52% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 92.0 106.682146367 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.6428571429 20.7667163134 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.28571428571 7.06120827912 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 4.38176352705 68% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.151079532701 0.244688304435 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0490263432726 0.084324248473 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0390989573895 0.0667982634062 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0950759519749 0.151304729494 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0364258742987 0.056905535591 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.0946893788 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 50.2224549098 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.3001002004 95% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.5 12.4159519038 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.51 8.58950901804 111% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 78.4519038076 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 9.78957915832 72% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.1190380762 83% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
More content wanted.
Minimum 250 words wanted.
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.