The line graph illustrates the amount of fruit production in four countries namely France, Spain, Germany, Turkey between 1970 and 2010
Overall, it can be seen that the amount of fruit produced in Spain ranked the first place. In addition, fruit production in France and Turkey increased. In contrast the fruit production in Germany was continuously decreasing.
In initial impression from the graph is that about 5.5 million tones of fruit were produced in Spain in 1970 compared to 3,5 million tones in Germany. In 1980 the amount of fruit production in Spain increased sharply and peaked at more than 6 millions of tones before decreasing by the end of 2010 to more than 5 millions tones. Whereas the amount of fruit was 2,5 millions tones of fruit in Germany however it dropped dramatically to 1,5 millions tones in 1990. The figure was stable for 10 years before it fell slightly at the end of the period 1,2 millions of tones.
In 1970 more than 1,2 tons of fruit was produced in France - the country with the lowest of the 4 producing countries. In the following years, fruit yield in France grew to reach 2,5 million tones in 2010. The amount of fruit produced in Turkey saw an increase of 1,5 millions tones in 2000 then rose to 3,5 million in the last year.
- The line graph below shows the monthly ridership of four separate transportation forms in a European metropolitan area between 1980 and 2030 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features making comparisons where relevant Write at 73
- The charts below give Information on the ages of the populations of Yemen and Italy In 2000 and projections for 2050.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 67
- The graph reveals the amount of consumption of energy in the USA since 1980 with some prediction until 2030 61
- The graph below shows the amount of electricity produced from different energy sources to supply the city of New York between 1980 and 2000 56
- the table below gives information on the frequency of using internet by adults in one European country between 2006 to 2010 33
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 136, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n, Germany, Turkey between 1970 and 2010 Overall, it can be seen that the amount ...
^^^
Line 2, column 157, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[2]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: contrast,
...tion in France and Turkey increased. In contrast the fruit production in Germany was con...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...n Germany was continuously decreasing. In initial impression from the graph is th...
^^
Line 3, column 151, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...mpared to 3,5 million tones in Germany. In 1980 the amount of fruit production in ...
^^
Line 3, column 241, Rule ID: CD_DOZENS_OF[1]
Message: Use a singular form of the numeral here: '6 million'.
Suggestion: 6 million
...creased sharply and peaked at more than 6 millions of tones before decreasing by the end of 2...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 549, Rule ID: CD_DOZENS_OF[1]
Message: Use a singular form of the numeral here: '2 million'.
Suggestion: 2 million
...ell slightly at the end of the period 1,2 millions of tones. In 1970 more than 1,2 tons of f...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, then, whereas, in addition, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 7.0 100% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 6.8 44% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 33.7804878049 148% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 3.97073170732 126% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1049.0 965.302439024 109% => OK
No of words: 224.0 196.424390244 114% => OK
Chars per words: 4.68303571429 4.92477711251 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86867284054 3.73543355544 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45731560855 2.65546596893 93% => OK
Unique words: 105.0 106.607317073 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.46875 0.547539520022 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 290.7 283.868780488 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 3.36585365854 178% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.4926829268 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.7866090029 43.030603864 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.9 112.824112599 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4 22.9334400587 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 5.23603664747 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 1.69756097561 353% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 3.70975609756 162% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.09268292683 73% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.398579091089 0.215688989381 185% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.179718248468 0.103423049105 174% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.13350012601 0.0843802449381 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.32985426708 0.15604864568 211% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.183978012342 0.0819641961636 224% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.2329268293 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 74.53 61.2550243902 122% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 10.3012195122 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.16 11.4140731707 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.19 8.06136585366 89% => OK
difficult_words: 35.0 40.7170731707 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.4329268293 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.9970731707 98% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.