The pie charts below show electricity generation by source in New Zealand and Germany in 1980 and 2010. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The pie charts compare the Electricity Generation of New Zealand with Germany in terms of 5 different sources from 1980 to 2010.
Overall, the total units of both countries increased over the years with dramatically changes in the proportion of each sources. New Zealand did not use nuclear as a source of energy but mostly coal whilst nuclear was the main element that create electricity in Germany.
In 1980 coal played the main role in generating electricity in New Zealand with 56 per 127 units then significantly rose up to precisely three quarters of total in 2010. Natural gas and hydro accounted for the same percentage of 30 per 127 units in 1980 and the least proportion belonged to petroleum with 11 units per total. Even though hydro continued to increase to 46 per 200 units, natural gas and petroleum witnessed a sharp falling to both 2 units per total in 2010.
Unlike New Zealand, Germany used nuclear to generate electricity with 20 units of this source in 1980, this number was relatively similar to petroleum with 22 units. In the meantime, natural gas and coal had the same figure of 28 per 107 units while hydro only accounted for 7 units. 2010 witnessed the considerably went up of nuclear to 155 units per total and a slight rise of petroleum to 27 units. Whereas, hydro and natural gas dramatically declined to both 2 units and coal’s figure remained the same in 2010.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-11-25 | Minh Pham | 56 | view |
| 2018-09-22 | phuong cao | 73 | view |
- Imprisonment statistic 61
- The graph below shows the proportion of renewable energy of the total supply in 2000 2004 and 2007 75
- Cinema attendance by age group 67
- The two pie charts below show the online shopping sales for retail sectors in Canada in 2005 and 2010 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 81
- The table and pie charts show the number of research students in Australian universities in 2001 and 2010.Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant. 56
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, so, 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: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 6.8 118% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 1.0 5.60731707317 18% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 33.7804878049 77% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 3.97073170732 25% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 791.0 965.302439024 82% => OK
No of words: 166.0 196.424390244 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.76506024096 4.92477711251 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.58944267634 3.73543355544 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54280383774 2.65546596893 96% => OK
Unique words: 81.0 106.607317073 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.487951807229 0.547539520022 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 234.0 283.868780488 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.33902439024 46% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.4926829268 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 25.5744012638 43.030603864 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 79.1 112.824112599 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.6 22.9334400587 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.9 5.23603664747 36% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 3.70975609756 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.09268292683 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.188188358146 0.215688989381 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.116600263565 0.103423049105 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.110877258941 0.0843802449381 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.16821186845 0.15604864568 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0683333017925 0.0819641961636 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.3 13.2329268293 70% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 72.16 61.2550243902 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 10.3012195122 70% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.09 11.4140731707 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.28 8.06136585366 90% => OK
difficult_words: 30.0 40.7170731707 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 11.4329268293 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.9970731707 76% => OK
text_standard: 7.0 11.0658536585 63% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.