The chart below shows the values of one country's exports in various categories during 2015 and 2016. The table shows the percentage change in each category of exports in 2016 compared with 2015.
The chart demonstrates the price of one country's exports in different categories while in the years 2015 and 2016. The table illustrates the percentage vary in every category of exports compare with 2016 and 2015.
Overall, it can be seen that there are five types of production: petroleum products, engineered goods, gems and jewellery, agricultural products and textiles' prices in billions that we can see table explains percentage alter in costs between 2015 and 2016. Firstly, petroleum products were considerably exported earnings with near the 62 billions in 2016 then this ones were the less more 60 billions and three percentage change in values these periods. Secondly, engineered goods had gradually exported approximately 62 billions in 2016 more than in 2015 had drammatically transported about 57 billions thus engineered goods' costs were clearly increased 8,5%. Thirdly, gems and jewellerly's exportation had certainly decreased presumebly 43 and 41 billions both of years yet its costs were declined 5,18% in 2016 and 2015. Fourthly, we can see that agricultural products' transformation was gradually grown than textiles in 2015 however in 2016 agricultural products and textiles ones tha same approximately 30 billions and textiles values had drammatically increased 15,24 in the years 2015 and 2016.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 361, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
... with near the 62 billions in 2016 then this ones were the less more 60 billions and...
^^^^
Line 2, column 380, Rule ID: LESS_COMPARATIVE[1]
Message: Non-standard use of the comparative or superlative. Did you mean 'less much'?
Suggestion: less much
...illions in 2016 then this ones were the less more 60 billions and three percentage change...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 863, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'products'' or 'product's'?
Suggestion: products'; product's
... Fourthly, we can see that agricultural products transformation was gradually grown than...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, then, third, thirdly, thus, well, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 7.0 100% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 1.00243902439 299% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 13.0 6.8 191% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 9.0 5.60731707317 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 22.0 33.7804878049 65% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1115.0 965.302439024 116% => OK
No of words: 202.0 196.424390244 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.5198019802 4.92477711251 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.76996954942 3.73543355544 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00039617683 2.65546596893 113% => OK
Unique words: 108.0 106.607317073 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.534653465347 0.547539520022 98% => OK
syllable_count: 315.9 283.868780488 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.33902439024 46% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 3.36585365854 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 7.0 8.94146341463 78% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 28.0 22.4926829268 124% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 62.3685556566 43.030603864 145% => OK
Chars per sentence: 159.285714286 112.824112599 141% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.8571428571 22.9334400587 126% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.2857142857 5.23603664747 235% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 2.0 3.83414634146 52% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 1.69756097561 177% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.09268292683 73% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.354161720025 0.215688989381 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.21798289832 0.103423049105 211% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.140062481637 0.0843802449381 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.3931982234 0.15604864568 252% => Maybe some contents are duplicated.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.171494472401 0.0819641961636 209% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.0 13.2329268293 144% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 61.2550243902 70% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.51609756098 172% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 10.3012195122 138% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.33 11.4140731707 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.06136585366 105% => OK
difficult_words: 44.0 40.7170731707 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.4329268293 127% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.9970731707 120% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.0658536585 136% => 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.