The graph below shows the amount of electricity produced from different energy sources to supply the city of New York between 1980 and 2000.
The line graph gives information about the electric productivity by distinct origins to provide for New York from 1980 to 2000.
Overall, while the amount of electricity made from petroleum and natural gas had increasing trends in the 1980 – 2000 period, the figure of the coal decreased slightly. The petroleum was the source of supplying electricity which had the highest productivity from 1980 to 2000.
At the starting point in 1980, about 350 million KwH was made from petroleum which was higher than those of both the coal and the natural gas, at only roughly 200 million KwH and exactly 100 million KwH, respectively. After a significant decreasing trend from 1985 to 1990, New York witnessed a sharp growth of the amount of electricity derived from petroleum which was peaked in 2000, at approximately 720 KwH.
In 1985, New York was supplied 100 million KwH of electricity that contributed from natural gas, which was lower than the figure of coal, at nearly 300 KwH. However, the trend of using electricity made from coal dropped to around 200 KwH in 2000, compared to precisely 500 KwH of the natural gas, a considerable difference by 300 KwH.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-04-08 | Giang Tran | 67 | view |
| 2020-05-07 | GT248 | 90 | view |
| 2020-05-09 | Thang Tran | 73 | view |
| 2022-04-08 | Giang Tran | 78 | view |
- The graph below shows the amount of electricity produced from different energy sources to supply the city of New York between 1980 and 2000 62
- The table shows the usage charge for water and the average bill per household in five cities 66
- People have little understanding of the importance of the natural world What are the reasons for this and how can people learn more about the natural world 84
- the expenditure on fast food by income groups UK 1990 73
- The charts show the percentage of people working in different sectors in Towns A and B in two years 1960 and 2010 80
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, so, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 7.0 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 6.8 44% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 2.0 5.60731707317 36% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 33.7804878049 115% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 3.97073170732 50% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 970.0 965.302439024 100% => OK
No of words: 196.0 196.424390244 100% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94897959184 4.92477711251 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.74165738677 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70254095501 2.65546596893 102% => OK
Unique words: 97.0 106.607317073 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.494897959184 0.547539520022 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 268.2 283.868780488 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 3.36585365854 208% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 7.0 8.94146341463 78% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 28.0 22.4926829268 124% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 34.9220706776 43.030603864 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.571428571 112.824112599 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.0 22.9334400587 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.85714285714 5.23603664747 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 3.70975609756 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.262373732569 0.215688989381 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.168199150218 0.103423049105 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0799660498016 0.0843802449381 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.202241516548 0.15604864568 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0645045000014 0.0819641961636 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 13.2329268293 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.98 61.2550243902 98% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.51609756098 172% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.8 10.3012195122 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 11.4140731707 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.93 8.06136585366 98% => OK
difficult_words: 36.0 40.7170731707 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.4329268293 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.9970731707 120% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => 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.