The graph below show the population of three cities in 1990, the population forecast of 2002 population of 2000 summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant.
The given table graph provided the information about the population of Jakarta, Sao Paulo and snanghai in 2000 whch measured the actual and predicted population in 1990 and 2000.
It can be seen from the graph that, Sao Paulo had the highest number of population in 1990, which was 15 million. The population of Shanghai was around nearly sao Paulo population and the city of Jakarta population was very less in 1919 rather than others cities.
Following this, the community was predicted in 2003. There would 24 million public in Sao Paulo by 2000 which would 9 times more than from 1990. The ratio of people would declined remarkably in Jakarta city and which would increased noticeably in city of Sangli in 2000.
Surprisingly, the population of was 8 times more than from predicted. However the community of Jakarta was increased moderately and become 17.5 million by 2000. The actual population was dropped minimally in shanghai to peaked at 12.5 million by 2000.
Overall, the sao Paulo and Jakarta population was equally in 2000, which was about 18 million in 17.5 million respectively.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 46, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n be seen from the graph that, Sao Paulo had the highest number of population in ...
^^
Line 3, column 171, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'decline'
Suggestion: decline
...an from 1990. The ratio of people would declined remarkably in Jakarta city and which wo...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 232, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n Jakarta city and which would increased noticeably in city of Sangli in 2000. S...
^^
Line 4, column 70, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...f was 8 times more than from predicted. However the community of Jakarta was increased ...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 138, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...arta was increased moderately and become 17.5 million by 2000. The actual populat...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 7.0 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 1.00243902439 499% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 3.0 5.60731707317 54% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 33.7804878049 92% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 3.97073170732 252% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 915.0 965.302439024 95% => OK
No of words: 183.0 196.424390244 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0 4.92477711251 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.67800887145 3.73543355544 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60059920925 2.65546596893 98% => OK
Unique words: 87.0 106.607317073 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.475409836066 0.547539520022 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 266.4 283.868780488 94% => 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: 7.0 4.33902439024 161% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 3.36585365854 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.4926829268 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.6708564517 43.030603864 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.5 112.824112599 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3 22.9334400587 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.7 5.23603664747 13% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 3.83414634146 130% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 1.69756097561 295% => Less language errors wanted.
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: 5.0 4.09268292683 122% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.236296778099 0.215688989381 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.114557949142 0.103423049105 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0826895219642 0.0843802449381 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164862028004 0.15604864568 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0815435992838 0.0819641961636 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 13.2329268293 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 61.2550243902 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 10.3012195122 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 11.4140731707 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.55 8.06136585366 94% => OK
difficult_words: 35.0 40.7170731707 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.4329268293 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.9970731707 84% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
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.