The graph below shows the average monthly change in the prices of three metals during 2014.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The line graph gives information about how the prices of copper, nickel and zinc change per month during 2014.
It is clear that there were significant changes in the amounts of the cost of three metals shown on the graph. While the cost of nickel and copper had a downward trend, there had been a slight growth in zinc.
In January 2014, nickel price was the highest percentage change based on the previous month (6%), while the data of copper and zinc are only 2% and 1%. Nonetheless, in the first half of the year, the percentage change in price of nickel slumped to 1% by March and reached a low of -3% by June. The changes for copper and zinc were less dramatic, with zinc seeing a 3% increase in February before a downward trend from March to June. Besides that, copper cost also had a slight decrease, fluctuating around 1% to approximately -1%.
From July to September of 2014, it can be seen from the graph that the proportion of change in prices of three metals accounting stabilized, with 1% for copper, well under 0% for zinc and a low of -1% for nickel. While nickel prices sharply rose from -2% in October to 1% in December and Copper prices had a small increase in the last month of the year which reached to approximately 2%, the zinc costs had a surge of 2% in December, which was the highest point reached among all the minerals’ prices.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-10-29 | Kshitij Kasabekar | 67 | view |
| 2023-07-21 | Nina_OY | 78 | view |
- The graph below shows the average monthly change in the prices of three metals during 2014 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 75
- The graph below shows the average monthly change in the prices of three metals during 2014 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 67
- The two pie charts give information about the average percentage of expenditure by students at one university from 2000 to 2010 73
- MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT AND CONTROLLED BY GOVERNMENTS RATHER THAN PRIVATE COMPANIES TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, first, if, nonetheless, so, well, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 7.0 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 6.8 118% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 33.7804878049 142% => 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: 1116.0 965.302439024 116% => OK
No of words: 249.0 196.424390244 127% => OK
Chars per words: 4.48192771084 4.92477711251 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.97237131171 3.73543355544 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.37892067128 2.65546596893 90% => OK
Unique words: 121.0 106.607317073 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.4859437751 0.547539520022 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 318.6 283.868780488 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.07073170732 280% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 3.36585365854 178% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.4926829268 120% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 60.0777274315 43.030603864 140% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.0 112.824112599 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.6666666667 22.9334400587 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.23603664747 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
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: 0.169198197587 0.215688989381 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0900606717746 0.103423049105 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0786072931922 0.0843802449381 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138949701013 0.15604864568 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0645210766213 0.0819641961636 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 13.2329268293 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 69.45 61.2550243902 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.3012195122 100% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.0 11.4140731707 79% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.07 8.06136585366 88% => OK
difficult_words: 33.0 40.7170731707 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.4329268293 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.9970731707 116% => 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.