The diagram below shows the development of the cutting tool in the Stone Age.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The diagram indicates how the cutting instruments evolved during the stone age. Overall, it is obvious that over the period, with the human impacts, stones that were used as cutting tools became bigger and more effective in chopping food or dividing stuff.
Initially, the front view illustrates that at an earlier stage, tools tended to be rougher and more comparatively primitive. Therefore, in comparison with Tool A, the edges of cutting instruments 80000 years ago were apparently smoother, and it is clear that it was more efficient as a means of cutting.
Another difference between these two tools is shown in the side view. Although the thickness is similar, tool B had a more well-defined line running from the top to bottom, and it allowed people to hold it with less efficiency. Moreover, due to the back view picture, not only being sharper but tool B is also longer and less rugged.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-03-27 | sunflower1190 | 56 | view |
| 2023-10-05 | imurminhanh | 89 | view |
| 2023-09-01 | jenifer Le | 78 | view |
| 2023-08-28 | Huyenlbg87 | 78 | view |
| 2023-04-28 | thtieen | view |
- The graph below shows the average carbon dioxide CO2 emissions per person in the United Kingdom Sweden Italy and Portugal between 1967 and 2007 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 84
- The diagrams illustrate the process of building an igloo 61
- It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to the remote natural environments such as the South pole Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages 78
- The maps below show a cafe 10 years ago 5 years ago and now Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 78
- The diagram below shows the process for recycling plastic bottles Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 92
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, if, moreover, so, therefore, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 7.0 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 10.0 5.60731707317 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 17.0 33.7804878049 50% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 1.0 3.97073170732 25% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 751.0 965.302439024 78% => OK
No of words: 152.0 196.424390244 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.94078947368 4.92477711251 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.51124308557 3.73543355544 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65951455331 2.65546596893 100% => OK
Unique words: 103.0 106.607317073 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.677631578947 0.547539520022 124% => OK
syllable_count: 229.5 283.868780488 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.482926829268 414% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 3.36585365854 59% => 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: 21.0 22.4926829268 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.5122308016 43.030603864 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.285714286 112.824112599 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7142857143 22.9334400587 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 5.23603664747 153% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 3.70975609756 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
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: 0.15006999975 0.215688989381 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0717937451519 0.103423049105 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0541779986526 0.0843802449381 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102875369163 0.15604864568 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0499788259493 0.0819641961636 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.2329268293 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 61.2550243902 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.3012195122 100% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.37 11.4140731707 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.83 8.06136585366 110% => OK
difficult_words: 40.0 40.7170731707 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.9970731707 95% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
More content wanted.
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.