The graph below shows average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per person in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy and Portugal between 1967 and 2007.
The line graph compares the average amounts of emissions of carbon dioxide per person in four European countries from 1967 to 2007.
It is clear that people in Italy and Portugal have released more carbon dioxide gradually, while people in United Kingdom and Sweden have cut down their carbon dioxide emissions (during the period).
In the year 1967, around 11 and 8.5 metric tonnes of CO2 were consumed by British people and Swedish respectively. Those were considerably large amounts compared to average CO2 emissions of Italy and Portugal, with slightly over 4 tonnes and 1 tonne respectively (in the same year). By 1977, there were increases in the figure for Italy, Portugal, and Sweden, by around 2 tonnes each, while the number of UK almost stayed in (the) same amount.
In the following 10 years, average carbon dioxide emissions in UK and Sweden showed decreasing trends, whereas the figures in Italy and Portugal had rising trends. In around 1990, the number of Italy overtook it of UK at the point of 7 tonnes. After 17 years, in the year 2007, average CO2 emissions by Swedish people declined to around 5, at which is a little bit lower than the number of Portugal.
- The chart below show how frequently people in the USA ate in fast food restaurants between 2003 and 2013. 56
- The graph below shows average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per person in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy and Portugal between 1967 and 2007. 52
- Nowadays technology is increasingly being used to monitor what people are saying and doing (for example, through cellphone tracking and security cameras). In many cases, the people being monitored are unaware that this is happening.Do you think the advant 47
- The bar chart below shows the percentage of Australian men and women in different age groups who did regular physical activity in 2010. 67
- The pie charts show the online shopping sales for retail sectors in New Zealand in 2003 and 2013. 49
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 355, Rule ID: LITTLE_BIT[1]
Message: Reduce redundancy by using 'little' or 'bit'.
Suggestion: little; bit
...ple declined to around 5, at which is a little bit lower than the number of Portugal.
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 401, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... bit lower than the number of Portugal.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
so, whereas, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 7.0 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 6.8 132% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 33.7804878049 118% => 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: 981.0 965.302439024 102% => OK
No of words: 202.0 196.424390244 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85643564356 4.92477711251 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.76996954942 3.73543355544 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42291712596 2.65546596893 91% => OK
Unique words: 112.0 106.607317073 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.554455445545 0.547539520022 101% => OK
syllable_count: 301.5 283.868780488 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.33902439024 46% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.07073170732 280% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 10.0 3.36585365854 297% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.4926829268 111% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.7395817253 43.030603864 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.625 112.824112599 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.25 22.9334400587 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.25 5.23603664747 43% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 1.69756097561 118% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 3.70975609756 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
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: 0.391132604073 0.215688989381 181% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.158960573101 0.103423049105 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.115521709136 0.0843802449381 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.245199220375 0.15604864568 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0926623212206 0.0819641961636 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 13.2329268293 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 61.2550243902 89% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.3012195122 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.2 11.4140731707 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.0 8.06136585366 99% => OK
difficult_words: 40.0 40.7170731707 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.4329268293 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.9970731707 109% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.