The illustration provides information about the evolution of stone cutting tools in the Stone Age, which was used by prehistoric men.
In general, the cutting tool had dramatically altered, which became larger during millions of years. Moreover, tool B was more refined than tool A at the shape and sharpness by the craftsmanship of prehistoric men.
According to the graph, 1.4 million years ago, tool A was approximately 10 cm with uneven angles, especially the front view of it, while the back view witnessed a completely different glance. The side view was cut roughly and obtusely.
However, 600000 years later, the cutting tool was advanced significantly from every aspect. It can clearly be seen that tool B was grinded more carefully and witnessed a definite tear-drop shape from the front view. The back and side views were tapered aggressively in order to become a sharper tool. Furthermore, the size was much bigger from both horizontal and vertical axises.
- The diagram below shows the development of cutting tools in the Stone Age Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparison where relevant 89
- The charts below show the changes in ownership of electrical appliances and amount of time spent doing housework in households in one country between 1920 and 2019 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons 73
- In some countries more and more people are becoming interested in finding out about the history of the house or building they live in What are the reasons for this How can people research this 85
- The diagrams below show the stages and equipment used in the cement making process and how cement is used to produce concrete for building purposes Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 87
- The graph and chart below give information about 3D cinema screens and film release Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparison where relevant 85
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, however, if, moreover, while, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 7.0 129% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 3.0 5.60731707317 54% => OK
Preposition: 18.0 33.7804878049 53% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 818.0 965.302439024 85% => OK
No of words: 158.0 196.424390244 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.17721518987 4.92477711251 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.54539209256 3.73543355544 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84399140883 2.65546596893 107% => OK
Unique words: 101.0 106.607317073 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.639240506329 0.547539520022 117% => OK
syllable_count: 249.3 283.868780488 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.33902439024 138% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 3.36585365854 59% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.4926829268 76% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.0640499692 43.030603864 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.8888888889 112.824112599 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5555555556 22.9334400587 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.88888888889 5.23603664747 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 1.13902439024 351% => Less 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: 0.133637252177 0.215688989381 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0636547639264 0.103423049105 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0578812171157 0.0843802449381 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102802648141 0.15604864568 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0668687042228 0.0819641961636 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.2329268293 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 61.2550243902 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.3012195122 96% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 11.4140731707 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.06136585366 106% => OK
difficult_words: 41.0 40.7170731707 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.4329268293 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.9970731707 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.