The line graph compares data about the proportion of people who paid a visit to four Brighton attractions in England from 1980 to 2010.
Overall, what stands out from the graph is that Pavilion and Pier attracted an increasing number of tourists during three decades. By contrast, the remaining attractions became less common among travellers, particularly for Art Gallery.
Looking at the details, in 1980, Festival accounted for the highest proportion of visitors, 30%, compared to just over 20% who visited Art Gallery. The figure for Festival then dropped gradually in the first half of the period to around 25% before recovering to approximatly 28% in 2010. Regarding Art Gallery, the percentage of visitors increased sharply in the first five years, rocketing to just under 40%. This figure, however, saw a significant decrease in the following 5 years. Dispite climbing marginally in the next decade, the figure fell again to just under 10% in 2010, which meant that it attracted far less than the other attractions.
In the same period, there were fluctuations in the percentage of travellers to Pier and Pavilion. The former’s figure varied between 10% and 15% before increasing noticeably to above 20% in 2010. The later’s figure boomed and hit the peak of nearly 50% in 1995, but then it went down quickly to just over 30% in the end of the period.
- The Graph below shows average carbon dioxide CO2 emissions per person in the United Kindom Sweden Italy and Portugal between 1967 and 2007 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
- The graph below shows different sources of air pollutants in the UK from 1990 to 2005 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 56
- The Graph below shows average carbon dioxide CO2 emissions per person in the United Kindom Sweden Italy and Portugal between 1967 and 2007 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
- a survey conducted for the places in which people gain access the internet from 1998 to 2005 78
- the graph below gives information about the preferred leisure activities of Australian children
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, look, regarding, then
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 : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 33.7804878049 148% => 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: 1107.0 965.302439024 115% => OK
No of words: 227.0 196.424390244 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87665198238 4.92477711251 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.88156143495 3.73543355544 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64447838485 2.65546596893 100% => OK
Unique words: 129.0 106.607317073 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.568281938326 0.547539520022 104% => 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: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 3.36585365854 30% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 1.0 8.94146341463 11% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 227.0 22.4926829268 1009% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 0.0 43.030603864 0% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 1107.0 112.824112599 981% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 227.0 22.9334400587 990% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 46.0 5.23603664747 879% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 3.70975609756 27% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.09268292683 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.121478476287 0.215688989381 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121478476287 0.103423049105 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0843802449381 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0945120484142 0.15604864568 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0804980719394 0.0819641961636 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 115.1 13.2329268293 870% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -150.47 61.2550243902 -246% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 0.0 6.51609756098 0% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 90.6 10.3012195122 880% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 12.5 11.4140731707 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 18.23 8.06136585366 226% => Dale chall readability score is high.
difficult_words: 48.0 40.7170731707 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 53.0 11.4329268293 464% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 92.8 10.9970731707 844% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 13.0 11.0658536585 117% => 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.