The graph below gives information about international tourist arrivals in five countries.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The chart below describes international tourist arrivals, in millions, in Brazil, Egypt, Malaysia, france and USA over a period of fifteen years, from 1995 to 2010.
The first interesting thing to observe is that four out of five countries developed their tourism with increasing number of arrivals in the given period, while in the USA arrivals started to decrease slightly from 2005. In fact in 1995, tourist arrivals in the USA were higher than in the other countries with 70 million , while in the same year France had 30 million, Malaysia 20 million and Brazil and Egypt were about at 10 milli...
- Machine translator (MT) is slower and less accurate than human translation and there is no immediate or predictable likelihood of machines taking over this role from humans.Do you agree or disagree? 90
- With recent developments in technology like e books some people feel that printed media like books newspapers and magazines will soon be a thing of the past Other feel that these form of media will never disappear What is your opinion 75
- The threat of nuclear weapons maintains world peace. Nuclear power provides cheap and clean energy.The benefits of nuclear technology far outweigh the disadvantages.Do you agree or disagree? 67
- Today, the high sales of the popular consumer goods reflect the power of advertising and not the real needs of the society in which they are sold. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 95
- A person’s worth nowadays seems to be judged according to social status and material possessions. Old-fashioned values, such as honor, kindness and trust, no longer seem important.To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? 95
Sentence: Another noteworthy aspect is that in 1997 tourism arrivals in Egypt overtook Brazil's one and they went up staidly to 15 and 12 million by 2010.
Error: staidly Suggestion: No alternate word
flaws:
Avg. Sentence Length: 32.333 21.0
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 7.5 out of 9
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 6 10
No. of Words: 194 200
No. of Characters: 903 1000
No. of Different Words: 101 100
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.732 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.655 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.275 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 65 60
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 49 50
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 26 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 9 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 32.333 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.498 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.552 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.847 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.22 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4