The diagrams below show two cutting tools made from stone. They are from an early period and a later period of human history. The tools were made by breaking off small pieces of stone.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The given diagram demonstrates two different cutting tools which were made by breaking a large stone into small pieces from an early period to the last period of human history.
Overall, while tool A were thick and it were not sharp enough, tool B was improved in sharping the cutting edge of the tool and becoming thinner.
Regarding to tool A which was made from 1.4 million years ago. The cutting tool A was thinner at the top of the tool and bigger in the end of that. The side view was not narrowed enough, which was approximately 3 - 4 centimeters. The front view and back view of this tool were rough.
On the other hand, tool B was improved significantly in the next six hundred thousands years. The side view was thinner. The cutting edge in the back view and front view were sharpen. In the top of the cutting stone, it was became more jagged by making it into the triangle shape, which could cut more easily.
- The chart below shows the percentage of female members of parliament in European countries Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 11
- The two bar charts below show the proportion of 14 to 16 year old students studying a foreign language in an English speaking country and the top three foreign languages Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make compa 56
- In spite of the advances made in agriculture many people around the world still go hungry Why is this the case What can be done about this problem 73
- The graph below shows the percentage of the Australian workforce in five industries between 1962 and 2012 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 61
- The chart below shows the percentage of female members of parliament in European countries Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 11
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 230, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ch was approximately 3 - 4 centimeters. The front view and back view of this tool w...
^^^
Line 4, column 170, Rule ID: WERE_VBB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'where' or 'we'?
Suggestion: where; we
...ng edge in the back view and front view were sharpen. In the top of the cutting ston...
^^^^
Line 4, column 175, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'sharpened'.
Suggestion: sharpened
...ge in the back view and front view were sharpen. In the top of the cutting stone, it wa...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 224, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'become'.
Suggestion: become
...In the top of the cutting stone, it was became more jagged by making it into the trian...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, regarding, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 7.0 186% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 33.7804878049 65% => OK
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: 753.0 965.302439024 78% => OK
No of words: 169.0 196.424390244 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.45562130178 4.92477711251 90% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.60555127546 3.73543355544 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.31185451105 2.65546596893 87% => OK
Unique words: 88.0 106.607317073 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.520710059172 0.547539520022 95% => OK
syllable_count: 223.2 283.868780488 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => 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: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.4926829268 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.3590820936 43.030603864 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 75.3 112.824112599 67% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.9 22.9334400587 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.9 5.23603664747 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 1.69756097561 236% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 1.13902439024 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.09268292683 98% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.300637488838 0.215688989381 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.123525646345 0.103423049105 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.145452520935 0.0843802449381 172% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.230149470724 0.15604864568 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.172554943183 0.0819641961636 211% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.0 13.2329268293 60% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 80.62 61.2550243902 132% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.0 10.3012195122 58% => Flesch kincaid grade is low.
coleman_liau_index: 8.29 11.4140731707 73% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.67 8.06136585366 83% => OK
difficult_words: 24.0 40.7170731707 59% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.4329268293 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.9970731707 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 230, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ch was approximately 3 - 4 centimeters. The front view and back view of this tool w...
^^^
Line 4, column 170, Rule ID: WERE_VBB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'where' or 'we'?
Suggestion: where; we
...ng edge in the back view and front view were sharpen. In the top of the cutting ston...
^^^^
Line 4, column 175, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'sharpened'.
Suggestion: sharpened
...ge in the back view and front view were sharpen. In the top of the cutting stone, it wa...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 224, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'become'.
Suggestion: become
...In the top of the cutting stone, it was became more jagged by making it into the trian...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, regarding, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 7.0 186% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 33.7804878049 65% => OK
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: 753.0 965.302439024 78% => OK
No of words: 169.0 196.424390244 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.45562130178 4.92477711251 90% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.60555127546 3.73543355544 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.31185451105 2.65546596893 87% => OK
Unique words: 88.0 106.607317073 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.520710059172 0.547539520022 95% => OK
syllable_count: 223.2 283.868780488 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => 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: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.4926829268 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.3590820936 43.030603864 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 75.3 112.824112599 67% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.9 22.9334400587 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.9 5.23603664747 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 1.69756097561 236% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 1.13902439024 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.09268292683 98% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.300637488838 0.215688989381 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.123525646345 0.103423049105 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.145452520935 0.0843802449381 172% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.230149470724 0.15604864568 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.172554943183 0.0819641961636 211% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.0 13.2329268293 60% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 80.62 61.2550243902 132% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.0 10.3012195122 58% => Flesch kincaid grade is low.
coleman_liau_index: 8.29 11.4140731707 73% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.67 8.06136585366 83% => OK
difficult_words: 24.0 40.7170731707 59% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.4329268293 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.9970731707 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.