The line graph compares the production of energy from coal in Sweden, France,
Denmark and Germany between 1995 and 2010.
The line graph compares the production of energy from coal in Sweden, France,
Denmark and Germany between 1995 and 2010. Overall, the percentage of energy
produced from coal declined in all four countries over the timeframe.
There was a dramatic fall in the production in Denmark and Germany. Denmark’s
production of energy from coal stood at 60% in 1995, higher than the other four
countries. However, production levels dropped sharply over the next 15 years to
finish at 10% in 2010, which was the lowest of that year. Energy production from
coal in Germany followed a similar pattern, beginning the period at just under 60%
and falling significantly, though unlike Denmark it fell to a low of only 5% in 2007
and then increased again to approximately 18%.
In contrast, Sweden and France saw more moderate falls over the period. 35% of
energy came from coal in Sweden in 1995, and this proportion gradually declined
over the period to finish at approximately 28% in 2010, the highest of the four
countries, while the percentage produced in France remained just under that of
Sweden over the 15-year period.
_________________________________________________________
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-07-15 | Jannatul firdausi rahma | 32 | view |
- The line chart below show The percentage of male and female teachers in six different types of educational setting in the UK in 2010 61
- The word question 11
- The pie charts below show the average household expenditures in country in 1959 and 2010 56
- The percentage of male and female teachers in six different tyoes of educational setting in the UK in 2010 61
- The pie charts below show the comparison of different kinds of energy production of France in two years 61
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 78, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n of energy from coal in Sweden, France, Denmark and Germany between 1995 and 201...
^^^
Line 2, column 77, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... 2010. Overall, the percentage of energy produced from coal declined in all four ...
^^^
Line 4, column 82, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n in Denmark and Germany. Denmark's production of energy from coal stood at ...
^^^
Line 5, column 80, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... 60% in 1995, higher than the other four countries. However, production levels dr...
^^^
Line 6, column 80, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ropped sharply over the next 15 years to finish at 10% in 2010, which was the low...
^^^
Line 7, column 81, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...est of that year. Energy production from coal in Germany followed a similar patte...
^^^
Line 8, column 83, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
..., beginning the period at just under 60% and falling significantly, though unlike...
^^^
Line 9, column 85, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...mark it fell to a low of only 5% in 2007 and then increased again to approximatel...
^^^
Line 11, column 79, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e moderate falls over the period. 35% of energy came from coal in Sweden in 1995,...
^^^
Line 13, column 80, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ely 28% in 2010, the highest of the four countries, while the percentage produced...
^^^
Line 14, column 79, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ed in France remained just under that of Sweden over the 15-year period. _______...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, then, while, in contrast
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 : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 4.0 5.60731707317 71% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 33.7804878049 124% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 3.97073170732 151% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1014.0 965.302439024 105% => OK
No of words: 187.0 196.424390244 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42245989305 4.92477711251 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.69794460899 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 4.63434342458 2.65546596893 175% => OK
Unique words: 99.0 106.607317073 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.529411764706 0.547539520022 97% => OK
syllable_count: 272.7 283.868780488 96% => 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: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.482926829268 621% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 3.36585365854 59% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 74.2284270007 43.030603864 173% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.75 112.824112599 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.375 22.9334400587 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.625 5.23603664747 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 16.0 3.83414634146 417% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 11.0 1.69756097561 648% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 3.70975609756 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
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: 0.483990817134 0.215688989381 224% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.249845800878 0.103423049105 242% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.290733082431 0.0843802449381 345% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149704537114 0.15604864568 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.178165968697 0.0819641961636 217% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 13.2329268293 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 61.2550243902 92% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.3012195122 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 11.4140731707 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.06136585366 102% => OK
difficult_words: 41.0 40.7170731707 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.4329268293 66% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => 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.