The diagram below shows the development of cutting tools in the Stone Age. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparison where relevant.
The diagram illustrates the evolution of cutting tools which are made of stone origins from the stone Age.
In general, the tool has shifted tremendously after 0.6 million years. The look of it seems smoother and bigger than the old one.
The first tool, namely tool A, was founded 1.4 million years ago. it was rough, and less sharp when looking at the front. There was no particular shape of tool A. The length was relatively short, around six centimeters.
The second tool whose name is B, was created 0.8 million years ago, which is 0.6 million years later from tool A. The tool is bigger compared with tool A. Its size is about ten centimeters. Regarding the front side of tool B, it has the shape of the drop of water. Despite of those factor, it can be seen that tool B is well shaped with clear-cut. Beside, it is flater and sharper at the tip than tool A when seeing the side view.
- Some people believe that all the children in school are require to learn at least one foreign language However others say that those who are not talented do not have to learn What is your opinion 87
- In many countries, the costs of living are rising. What are the effects on individuals and society? Suggest solutions to this problem 67
- The diagram below shows the development of cutting tools in the Stone Age. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparison where relevant. 61
- The table below gives information on consumer spending on different items in five different countries in 2002. 61
- Computers are increasingly used in education. In which areas do you think are computers more important and in which are teachers more important. 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 67, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: It
...l A, was founded 1.4 million years ago. it was rough, and less sharp when looking ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, if, look, regarding, second, well, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 7.0 186% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 6.8 44% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 3.15609756098 190% => OK
Pronoun: 8.0 5.60731707317 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 20.0 33.7804878049 59% => 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: 744.0 965.302439024 77% => OK
No of words: 165.0 196.424390244 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.50909090909 4.92477711251 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.58402463422 3.73543355544 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.21693954285 2.65546596893 83% => OK
Unique words: 98.0 106.607317073 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.593939393939 0.547539520022 108% => OK
syllable_count: 211.5 283.868780488 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 1.53170731707 326% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 4.33902439024 161% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 8.94146341463 145% => OK
Sentence length: 12.0 22.4926829268 53% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 23.2722502809 43.030603864 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 57.2307692308 112.824112599 51% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 12.6923076923 22.9334400587 55% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.23603664747 76% => 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 : 3.0 1.13902439024 263% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.149265258056 0.215688989381 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0577131861184 0.103423049105 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0630275590181 0.0843802449381 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109978633106 0.15604864568 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0815791155928 0.0819641961636 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 6.2 13.2329268293 47% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 84.68 61.2550243902 138% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 4.4 10.3012195122 43% => Flesch kincaid grade is low.
coleman_liau_index: 7.99 11.4140731707 70% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.91 8.06136585366 86% => OK
difficult_words: 28.0 40.7170731707 69% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 11.4329268293 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 6.8 10.9970731707 62% => OK
text_standard: 7.0 11.0658536585 63% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.