The charts below show changes in the proportion of the energy produced from different resources in a country in 1985 and 2003
The pie charts illustrate the percentage of the power generated from various resources in one country in two years, namely 1985 and 2003.
In general, there were noticeable changes in the proportion of energy produced from oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, and other renewable, while a constant trend can be seen if we look at the figure for hydro. It is also clear that the figure for oil was higher than for any other resource over the period shown.
At the beginning of the period, 52% of the energy produced in this country was from oil, compared to only 13% from natural gas and 8% from coal. Over the following 18 years, this country saw the percentage of energy produced from oil decrease to 39%. During the same period, natural gas and coal followed the opposite trends to that of oil, with figures increasing to 23% and 22% .
In 1985, nuclear accounted for 22% of the total power generated in this country, while the figures for hydro and other renewable were lower, at 4% and 1% respectively. After 18 years, the proportion of energy generated from nuclear fell considerably, dropping to 8%. Furthermore, the percentage of power produced from hydro remained unchanged; however, the figure for other renewable rose slightly, to 4% in 2003
- The diagrams shows a park in 1980 and now 61
- The charts below describe the numbers of people per household in 1995 and 2005 of an European country 66
- In modern age some people believe that it is unnecessary to teach children the skill of handwriting To what extent do you agree or disagree 58
- The restoration of old buildings in major cities in the world costs numerous governments expenditure This money should be used in new housing and road development Dou you agree or disagree 78
- Some people said that giving aid to poorer countries has more negative effects than positive effects To what extend do you agree or disagree 56
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 379, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
..., with figures increasing to 23% and 22% . In 1985, nuclear accounted for 22% of ...
^^
Line 4, column 130, Rule ID: WERE_VBB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'where' or 'we'?
Suggestion: where; we
...e figures for hydro and other renewable were lower, at 4% and 1% respectively. After...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, however, if, look, so, while, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 7.0 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 7.0 5.60731707317 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 40.0 33.7804878049 118% => 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: 1036.0 965.302439024 107% => OK
No of words: 214.0 196.424390244 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84112149533 4.92477711251 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.82475343497 3.73543355544 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54775906581 2.65546596893 96% => OK
Unique words: 114.0 106.607317073 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.532710280374 0.547539520022 97% => OK
syllable_count: 315.9 283.868780488 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.07073170732 280% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 3.36585365854 267% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.119312929 43.030603864 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.111111111 112.824112599 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7777777778 22.9334400587 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.55555555556 5.23603664747 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 1.69756097561 118% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 3.70975609756 189% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.273162203115 0.215688989381 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.12632360611 0.103423049105 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0840031197745 0.0843802449381 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.180234932784 0.15604864568 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0526290238272 0.0819641961636 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.2329268293 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 61.2550243902 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.3012195122 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.09 11.4140731707 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.1 8.06136585366 100% => OK
difficult_words: 45.0 40.7170731707 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.4329268293 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.0658536585 127% => 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.