The diagram below shows the development of the cutting tool in the Stone Age.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The diagram indicates how the cutting instruments evolved during the stone age. Overall, it is obvious that over the period, with the human impacts, stones that were used as cutting tools became bigger and more effective in chopping food or dividing stuff.
Initially, the front view illustrates that at an earlier stage, tools tended to be rougher and more comparatively primitive. Therefore, in comparison with Tool A, the edges of cutting instruments 80000 years ago were apparently smoother, and it is clear that it was more efficient as a means of cutting.
Another difference between these two tools is shown in the side view. Although the thickness is similar, tool B had a more well-defined line running from the top to bottom, and it allowed people to hold it with less efficiency. Moreover, due to the back view picture, not only being sharper but tool B is also longer and less rugged.
- In some countries more and more people are becoming interested in finding out about the history of the house or building they live in What are the reasons for this How can people research this 73
- In many countries today people buy a range of household goods television microwave oven and rice cookers Is it a positive or negative development 11
- The charts show the sources of electricity produced in 4 countries between 2003 and 2008 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 78
- The diagrams below give information about the manufacture of frozen fish pies Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 11
- In spite of the advances made in agriculture many people around the world still go hungry Why is this the case What can be done about this problem 89
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, if, moreover, so, therefore, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 7.85571142285 0% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 24.0651302605 42% => OK
Preposition: 17.0 41.998997996 40% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 1.0 8.3376753507 12% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 753.0 1615.20841683 47% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 152.0 315.596192385 48% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.95394736842 5.12529762239 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.51124308557 4.20363070211 84% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65951455331 2.80592935109 95% => OK
Unique words: 103.0 176.041082164 59% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.677631578947 0.561755894193 121% => OK
syllable_count: 229.5 506.74238477 45% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 5.43587174349 18% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 7.0 16.0721442886 44% => 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: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.5122308016 49.4020404114 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.571428571 106.682146367 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7142857143 20.7667163134 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06120827912 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 4.38176352705 68% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.67935871743 35% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.15006999975 0.244688304435 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0717937451519 0.084324248473 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0541779986526 0.0667982634062 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102875369163 0.151304729494 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0499788259493 0.056905535591 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.0946893788 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 50.2224549098 117% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.43 12.4159519038 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.83 8.58950901804 103% => OK
difficult_words: 40.0 78.4519038076 51% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum 250 words wanted.
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.