The pie chart below shows the main reasons why agricultural land becomes less productive. The table shows how these causes affected three regions of the world during the 1990s.
The pie graph illustrates the causes of worldwide agricultural land degradation, while the table indicates these three causes impacted North America, Europe and Oceania (including Australia and New Zealand) at the end of 20 centuries.
Looking at the information on the pie chart in more detail, we can see that over-grazing accounted for the largest proportion at 35%. This is followed by the second largest factor of deforestation at 30% while over-cultivation took place at a fewer percentage (28%). The other factor was occupied a minor percentage at only 7%.
Turning to the table, the highest percentage of over-grazing was caused by Oceania accounted at 11.3% while deforestation impacted in the agricultural fields in Europe was the largest (9.8%). North America was holding the minor percentage in deforestation, over-cultivation and over-grazing at 0.2%, 3.3% and 1.5 respectively. This led to North America contributed to the smallest percentage of total land degradation at just 5%.
Overall, it is clear that the main reasons for global land degradation were over-grazing, over-cultivation, as well as deforestation. Europe contributed to the largest proportion of the total land degraded, although Oceania occupied the highest percentage on over-grazing.
- The bar chart below shows the proportions of English men and women of different ages who were living alone in 2011 The pie chart compares the numbers of bedrooms in these one person households 87
- The line graph shows the average annual expenditures on cell phone and residential phone services between 2001 and 2010 74
- The use of the mobile phone in certain places is just as antisocial as smoking. Do you think mobile should be banned like smoking? 61
- The graph below shows changes in global food and oil prices between 2000 and 2011. 84
- The graph below shows the proportion of the population who use the Internet between 1999 and 2009 in three different countries 42
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, look, second, so, well, while, as well as
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 : 4.0 6.8 59% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 7.0 5.60731707317 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 34.0 33.7804878049 101% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 3.97073170732 302% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1089.0 965.302439024 113% => OK
No of words: 192.0 196.424390244 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.671875 4.92477711251 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.72241943641 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.4845268091 2.65546596893 131% => OK
Unique words: 104.0 106.607317073 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.541666666667 0.547539520022 99% => OK
syllable_count: 332.1 283.868780488 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.45097560976 117% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 1.53170731707 261% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.07073170732 280% => Less 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: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.4926829268 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.8718020381 43.030603864 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.0 112.824112599 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3333333333 22.9334400587 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.11111111111 5.23603664747 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 1.13902439024 263% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.09268292683 98% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.096463273171 0.215688989381 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0453119950768 0.103423049105 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0531681116487 0.0843802449381 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0771626186059 0.15604864568 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0604271597388 0.0819641961636 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 13.2329268293 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 61.2550243902 68% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.51609756098 172% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 10.3012195122 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.61 11.4140731707 137% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.06136585366 108% => OK
difficult_words: 49.0 40.7170731707 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.4329268293 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.9970731707 95% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.0658536585 145% => 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.