The plans below show a student room for two people and a student room for one person at an Australian university.
The two maps compare prices and specific features of two kinds of student room: single room and a double room at an Australian university.
Overall, despite sharing a similar layout, there are a lot of differences between two rooms such as the price, the size, the features, and the number of accommodations. It is also noticed that the room for two people obviously has more spacious and equipped more furniture even though it costs less per each individual.
The student room for two people is 150 dollars per week more than the room for one individual. That room contains two beds with two study desks. The two students’ compartments are separated by two cupboards. Not only is there a bookshelf added next to the bathroom but the kitchen area is also rearranged to give space for a table and chairs and the television.
The student room for one person has only one bed, but it has much larger windows for a better view. It has the same feature as the double room with some basic equipment such as a stove, sink, television, study desk, bed, and a bathroom. Lastly, the width in the bathroom is different as the room for two people has a width of four meters and the room for a single person has a width of only two and a half meters.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-07-08 | nobitaa | 78 | view |
| 2024-07-08 | nobitaa | 73 | view |
| 2023-03-24 | TLan168 | 61 | view |
| 2021-11-11 | 10diemcute | 78 | view |
| 2021-11-11 | 10diemcute | 78 | view |
- Today many children spend a lot of time playing computer games and little time on sports Why is it Is it a positive or negative development 84
- The plans below show a student room for two students and a student room for one student at an Australian university 64
- The chart below shows the percentage of volunteers by organizations in 2008 and 2014 73
- More and more people are suffering from health problems caused by a modern lifestyle which cannot be treated with modern medicines Some people think that a return to traditional medicine should be encouraged To what extent do you agree or disagree 89
- The increase in the production of consumer goods results in damage to the natural environment What are the causes of this What can be done to solve this problem 80
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, lastly, so, such as
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 : 11.0 6.8 162% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 15.0 33.7804878049 44% => More preposition wanted.
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: 1024.0 965.302439024 106% => OK
No of words: 225.0 196.424390244 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.55111111111 4.92477711251 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.87298334621 3.73543355544 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51241264205 2.65546596893 95% => OK
Unique words: 114.0 106.607317073 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.506666666667 0.547539520022 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 311.4 283.868780488 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.33902439024 161% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 0.482926829268 621% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 3.36585365854 30% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.4926829268 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.5091556166 43.030603864 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.4 112.824112599 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5 22.9334400587 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.4 5.23603664747 65% => OK
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 : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.09268292683 195% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.517506868835 0.215688989381 240% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.223873614007 0.103423049105 216% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.13995451482 0.0843802449381 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.337835715287 0.15604864568 216% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0923217190355 0.0819641961636 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 13.2329268293 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 66.07 61.2550243902 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 10.3012195122 92% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.41 11.4140731707 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.46 8.06136585366 93% => OK
difficult_words: 39.0 40.7170731707 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.9970731707 98% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => 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.