he 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.
The diagram demonstrates the evolution of cutting tools from 1.4 million years ago to 0.8 million year ago with 3 angles of viewing: front view, side view and back view.
Both two stones look quite simple, the lengths are about 5 cm and have no handle.
The most significant difference we can see is that from the side view , the tool A is much thicker than the tool B. Compared to tool A ,the tool B is sharper so it can cut thing more conviniently .
From the front view and back view, it is found that the tool B was more polish than tool A. The tool A seems not be changed so much from the origin shape. Thus the cutting funtion of the tool B is much more obvious than tool A.
In conclusion, by looking at the tool B , we can acknowledge that people after 0.6 million year of evolution, they found the way to cut things more effectively with the stone tools.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-03-27 | sunflower1190 | 56 | view |
| 2023-10-05 | imurminhanh | 89 | view |
| 2023-09-01 | jenifer Le | 78 | view |
| 2023-08-28 | Huyenlbg87 | 78 | view |
| 2023-04-28 | thtieen | view |
- he 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 56
- Rich countries often give money to poorer countries but it does not solve poverty Therefore developed countries should give other types of help to the poor countries rather than financial aid To what extent do you agree or disagree 56
- line graph discription 11
- More and more people are becoming seriously overweight Some people suggest that the solution to this problem is to increase the price of fattening foods To what extent do you agree or disagree 61
- the activities of large multinational corporations mostly benefit the economies of developing countries Other people take the opposite view 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 70, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ce we can see is that from the side view , the tool A is much thicker than the too...
^^
Line 5, column 135, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...cker than the tool B. Compared to tool A ,the tool B is sharper so it can cut thin...
^^
Line 5, column 196, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...er so it can cut thing more conviniently . From the front view and back view, i...
^^
Line 7, column 156, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... changed so much from the origin shape. Thus the cutting funtion of the tool B is mu...
^^^^
Line 9, column 40, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
... In conclusion, by looking at the tool B , we can acknowledge that people after 0....
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, look, so, thus, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 7.0 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 1.00243902439 299% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 3.0 6.8 44% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 8.0 5.60731707317 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 18.0 33.7804878049 53% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 4.0 3.97073170732 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 708.0 965.302439024 73% => OK
No of words: 165.0 196.424390244 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.29090909091 4.92477711251 87% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.58402463422 3.73543355544 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.29338989014 2.65546596893 86% => OK
Unique words: 95.0 106.607317073 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.575757575758 0.547539520022 105% => OK
syllable_count: 197.1 283.868780488 69% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.2 1.45097560976 83% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.33902439024 138% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.4926829268 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.1900462195 43.030603864 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.5 112.824112599 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.625 22.9334400587 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.125 5.23603664747 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 3.83414634146 130% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 1.69756097561 295% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 1.13902439024 351% => Less 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: 0.134931573589 0.215688989381 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0722817268075 0.103423049105 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0289328084334 0.0843802449381 34% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0782894339464 0.15604864568 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0269584358874 0.0819641961636 33% => 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: 9.1 13.2329268293 69% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 85.02 61.2550243902 139% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.4 10.3012195122 62% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 7.6 11.4140731707 67% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.73 8.06136585366 83% => OK
difficult_words: 22.0 40.7170731707 54% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.9970731707 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.0658536585 90% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
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.