The graph and the table below give information about water use worldwide and water consumption in two different countries. Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The line graph illustrates the use of water for different purposes over the world from 1900 to 2000. The table shows how much water is consumed averagely in 2 countries examined in 2000.
Overall, there was an increase in the use of water in all of three areas all over the world during the period, with the dramatic rise in 3 areas from 1950 onwards. It’s clear that the population and land for irrigation are much higher than the other country, so that the water consumption is huger.
The amount of water used for agriculture started around 500 cubic kilometers, after which it gradually went up to approximately 1000 cubic kilometers before it reached a peak of 3000 cubic kilometers. Similar changes, but to lesser extent were seen in both of industrial and domestic use of water, which grew up from 0 in the first year to 1000 and about 400 cubic kilometers respectively in 2000.
176 million people were the population of Brazil in the year 2000, which was far greater than that of Democratic Republic of Congo (5,2 million). Similarly, the land used for irrigation in Brazil was much larger, which was 26500 square kilometers, while there were only 100 square kilometers in the other country. As a result, water use in Brazil was much higher than Democractic Republic of Congo (351 cubic meters higher).
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-22 | nijam | 73 | view |
| 2023-09-12 | maiphuonganh | 73 | view |
| 2022-11-30 | Johndavisvu | 73 | view |
| 2021-11-16 | mina_sharifi | 78 | view |
| 2021-11-16 | mina_sharifi | 11 | view |
- The table below gives information on visitor statistics for 1996 1998 and 2000 for various World Heritage sites in Australia 78
- The graph below shows female unemployment rates in each country of the United Kingdom in 2013 and 2014 67
- Foreign visitors should pay more than local visitors for cultural and historical attractions To what extent do you agree and disagree with this opinion 78
- The pictures show information about average income and spending on food and clothes by an average family in a city in the UK 67
- The table below shows population figures for 4 countries for 2003 and projected figures for 2025 and 2050 67
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, similarly, so, while, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 7.0 157% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 6.8 59% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 3.15609756098 222% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 33.7804878049 118% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 3.97073170732 126% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1086.0 965.302439024 113% => OK
No of words: 227.0 196.424390244 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.78414096916 4.92477711251 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.88156143495 3.73543355544 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54273952026 2.65546596893 96% => OK
Unique words: 125.0 106.607317073 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550660792952 0.547539520022 101% => OK
syllable_count: 329.4 283.868780488 116% => 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: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.07073170732 374% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 25.0 22.4926829268 111% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.7406699242 43.030603864 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.666666667 112.824112599 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2222222222 22.9334400587 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.44444444444 5.23603664747 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 3.70975609756 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.148082509305 0.215688989381 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0744247176115 0.103423049105 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0469741139036 0.0843802449381 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105688138283 0.15604864568 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0569637492901 0.0819641961636 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.2329268293 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 61.2550243902 89% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.51609756098 172% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.3012195122 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.74 11.4140731707 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.06136585366 102% => OK
difficult_words: 48.0 40.7170731707 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.4329268293 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.9970731707 109% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => 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.