The chart below shows the number of global conferences in three capitals between 1980 and 2010.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisions where relevant.
The line graph illustrates the number of global meetings hosted in three capitals from 1980 to 2010.
It is clear that there was a dramatic increase in the number of international conferences in city C, while the figures for global meetings in city A and city B declined over this period.
In 1980, there were 35 international conferences in city A, compared with 30 conferences in city B. Whereas there was no global meeting held in city C. The figures for conferences in city A and city B then declined overall. until in 2005 the number of conferences in both city A and city B was 27.
By contrast, the number of international conferences held in city C increased continuously. Until 2000, the figure for global meetings in city C reached a peak at 35 conferences. After that, this number decreased gradually to 31 conferences by the end of the period. However, the number of global meetings in city C remained higher than in the other cities. By 2010, global meeting number in city B had overtaken the number of city A, with 27 and 24 conferences respectively.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-07-09 | Pham Thuy Dung | 11 | view |
- Write a report on three capital cities in terms of the number of international conferences between 1980 and 2010. 67
- The chart below shows the number of global conferences in three capitals between 1980 and 2010.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisions where relevant. 11
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 123, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...erences in city C, while the figures for global meetings in city A and city B dec...
^^
Line 7, column 225, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Until
...ity A and city B then declined overall. until in 2005 the number of conferences in bo...
^^^^^
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... 27 and 24 conferences respectively.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, then, whereas, while
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 : 4.0 6.8 59% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 33.7804878049 107% => 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: 897.0 965.302439024 93% => OK
No of words: 188.0 196.424390244 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.77127659574 4.92477711251 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.70287850203 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9346810516 2.65546596893 111% => OK
Unique words: 86.0 106.607317073 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.457446808511 0.547539520022 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 270.9 283.868780488 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.07073170732 374% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 3.36585365854 208% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 8.94146341463 123% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.4926829268 76% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.2712369264 43.030603864 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.5454545455 112.824112599 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0909090909 22.9334400587 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.63636363636 5.23603664747 50% => More 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 : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.09268292683 49% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.215688989381 0% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.103423049105 0% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0843802449381 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.15604864568 0% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0819641961636 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.6 13.2329268293 73% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 71.14 61.2550243902 116% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 10.3012195122 74% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.09 11.4140731707 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.0 8.06136585366 87% => OK
difficult_words: 30.0 40.7170731707 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.4329268293 74% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.9970731707 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 11.2359550562 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.