The graph indicates the amount of people who came to four international museums from 1980 to 2015.
As is observed, Lourve and Vatican Museum had an increasing number of vistors in this period while amount of people who went to Shenzhen Museum decreased at the middle time and London Science Museum fell from the begin to the end.
Turning to the details, in 1980, Lourve and Vatican Museum had the total amount of vistor of nearly 8000 and 5000, respectively. 35 years later, Lourve strengthened its number of sightseers by around 1500, Vatican Museum almost doubled its amount of guest to nearly 10000. In term of Shenzhen, at the begin of the period, it had around 4000 vistors. This number dropped slightly after that and then rose again to 4000. London Science Museum had a gradual fall in vistor number, from more than 4000 at first to just more than 2000 after 35 years.
All in all, there were only Lourve and Vatican Museum grew their sightseer number after all.
- The table below shows the television viewing figures for sports by country in millions 67
- The table below presents the food consumption per person weekly in a European country in 1992 2002 2012 78
- the map below show the village of stokeford in1930 and 2010 summarise the information and make comparison where relevant 61
- The table below shows the television viewing figures for sports by country in millions 67
- the plans below show a public park when it was first opened in 1920 and the same park today Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 67
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 210, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...ime and London Science Museum fell from the begin to the end. Turning to the details, ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 298, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...o nearly 10000. In term of Shenzhen, at the begin of the period, it had around 4000 visto...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, then, while, after all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 2.0 7.0 29% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 7.0 5.60731707317 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 34.0 33.7804878049 101% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 3.97073170732 50% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 811.0 965.302439024 84% => OK
No of words: 170.0 196.424390244 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.77058823529 4.92477711251 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.61087313685 3.73543355544 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.23567334244 2.65546596893 84% => OK
Unique words: 97.0 106.607317073 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.570588235294 0.547539520022 104% => OK
syllable_count: 225.0 283.868780488 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => 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: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.4926829268 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.2660271309 43.030603864 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.375 112.824112599 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.25 22.9334400587 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.625 5.23603664747 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 1.69756097561 118% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 3.70975609756 162% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.09268292683 49% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.143889860806 0.215688989381 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0733953602399 0.103423049105 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0685751352091 0.0843802449381 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115623529372 0.15604864568 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0754031430719 0.0819641961636 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.2329268293 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 75.54 61.2550243902 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 10.3012195122 77% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.39 11.4140731707 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.37 8.06136585366 91% => OK
difficult_words: 29.0 40.7170731707 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.4329268293 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.9970731707 95% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.