The diagram below shows the development of cutting tools in the Stone Age. Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The picture illustrates the differences between cutting tools 1.4 and 0.8 million years ago.
Overall, over a timespan of 600,000 years, the tool was improved significantly. The tool used 1.4 million years ago was smaller in size and shape than that of 0.8 million years ago. There was also an increase in the tool’s length in a period of 600 thousand years.
Tool A, which existed 1.4 million years before, was not as sharp as Tool B, which was used 0.8 million years ago because the tip of tool B was thinner and the edge was more rounded than that of tool A. The length and width of two tools also had many differences. The length of the cutting tool 800 thousand years ago was longer than the length of the tool 1.4 million years ago. Moreover, the width of the Stone Age cutting tool expanded throughout 0.6 million years.
The front and view of the chopping tool 0.8 million years before changed significantly compared to that of the previous time. The front and back sides of the later tool looked similar to a water drop, whereas that of the older period tool seemed to be rougher.
- The diagram below shows the manufacturing process for making sugar from sugar cane 84
- The bar chart below shows shares of expenditures for five major categories in the United States Canada the United Kingdom and Japan in the year 2009 78
- The diagrams show changes in a student common room 78
- Advertising is becoming more and more common in everyday life Is this a positive or negative development 73
- The table shows data about underground railway systems in six major cities with date opened kilometres of route and passenger numbers per year in millions Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features making comparisons where rele 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 120, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: smaller
...The tool used 1.4 million years ago was smaller in size and shape than that of 0.8 million year...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, look, moreover, so, whereas, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 7.0 129% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 3.15609756098 190% => OK
Pronoun: 4.0 5.60731707317 71% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 33.7804878049 71% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 3.97073170732 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 900.0 965.302439024 93% => OK
No of words: 197.0 196.424390244 100% => OK
Chars per words: 4.56852791878 4.92477711251 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.74642080493 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.27444024095 2.65546596893 86% => OK
Unique words: 93.0 106.607317073 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.472081218274 0.547539520022 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 250.2 283.868780488 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.33902439024 184% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More 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: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.4926829268 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.535183495 43.030603864 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.0 112.824112599 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7 22.9334400587 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.4 5.23603664747 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 1.13902439024 351% => 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: 0.117105594315 0.215688989381 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0663225240756 0.103423049105 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0420008392001 0.0843802449381 50% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0821644917816 0.15604864568 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0284700068307 0.0819641961636 35% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.9 13.2329268293 75% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 77.57 61.2550243902 127% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 10.3012195122 70% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.23 11.4140731707 81% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.14 8.06136585366 89% => OK
difficult_words: 32.0 40.7170731707 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.4329268293 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.9970731707 87% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.0658536585 90% => 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.