The diagrams depict two stone tools used by ancient humans, dated from two different periods of time: 1.4 million years ago and 80000 years ago.
In general, the shape of the newer tool looks sharply different compared to the older one although their sizes are relatively the same.
Over 1.4 million years ago, the cutting tool was a jagged piece of rock. The front and back surfaces are uneven with many cracks and chipped edges, while looking from the side shows this primal tool has a certain thickness and is slightly curved at the top. However, there is no definable sharp tip or edge.
Compared to the earlier version, the tool from 80000 years ago has a much more well-formed shape. The edges and surfaces had been smoothly polished with one end sharpened to a tip and the other flat, similar to the shape a teardrop or a leaf. Additionally, from its side view, the new tool is visibly slimmer than its older counterpart. In a way, this tool more closely resembles modern cutting tools such as a knife.
- Some children receive almost no encouragement from their parents regarding their performance at school while other children receive too much pressure from their over enthusiastic parents Why do some parents put too much pressure What should the role of a 61
- 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 comparisons where relevant 78
- People aim to achieve balance between their work and lives But few people achieve it What are the causes of the problems How to overcome it 56
- Some children receive almost no encouragement from their parents regarding their performance at school while other children receive too much pressure from their over enthusiastic parents Why do some parents put too much pressure What should the role of a 78
- The table below illustrates weekly consumption by age group of dairy products in a European country Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 75
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, look, well, while, in general, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 7.0 100% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 6.8 118% => OK
Relative clauses : 0.0 3.15609756098 0% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 18.0 33.7804878049 53% => More preposition wanted.
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: 840.0 965.302439024 87% => OK
No of words: 179.0 196.424390244 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.69273743017 4.92477711251 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.65774358864 3.73543355544 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.26698651613 2.65546596893 85% => OK
Unique words: 112.0 106.607317073 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.625698324022 0.547539520022 114% => OK
syllable_count: 250.2 283.868780488 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.33902439024 161% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.4926829268 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.7279441182 43.030603864 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.3333333333 112.824112599 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8888888889 22.9334400587 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.66666666667 5.23603664747 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 3.70975609756 27% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 1.13902439024 263% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.09268292683 122% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.11184155534 0.215688989381 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0467518015007 0.103423049105 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0357612425049 0.0843802449381 42% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0659455861915 0.15604864568 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0198453985395 0.0819641961636 24% => 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: 10.6 13.2329268293 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 61.2550243902 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 10.3012195122 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.92 11.4140731707 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.06136585366 107% => OK
difficult_words: 46.0 40.7170731707 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.4329268293 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.9970731707 87% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => 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.