The charts below show the proportions of British students at one university in England who were able to speak other languages in addition to English, in 2000 and 2010.
Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The pie charts illustrate the percentage of British students who could speak six distinct other languages in addition to English in 2000 and 2010.
It is obvious that the percentage of all languages increased except two groups. First, no other language declined in 2010, and second German only group that did not change by 2010. Most of the students liked to learn Spanish only.
As can be seen, pupils who spoke only native decreased by 10 percent in 2010. Another group by 10 percent in both 2000 and 2010 years leveled off that German only students. All other remain groups have risen only 5 percent including two other languages, French only, another language, and Spanish only to order 15, 20, 15, and 35 percent in 2010. Most students have more tendency to learn Spanish only in England.
In conclusion, the pupils who wanted to learn Spanish only were more than other groups in 2000 and 2010. The rate of students who speak other language in this university increased totally.
- some people think that parents should teach children how to be good members of society Others however believe that school is the place to learn this Discuss both these views and give your own opinion 56
- the graph below gives information about the percentage of the population in four Asian countries living in cities from 1970 to 2020 with predictions for 2030 and 2040
- The charts below show the proportions of British students at one university in England who were able to speak other languages in addition to English in 2000 and 2010 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make compariso 67
- The table below gives information about changes in modes pf travel in England between 1985 and 2000 summaries the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
- The two maps below show an island before and after the construction of some tourist facilities Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, second, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 7.0 43% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 1.00243902439 200% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 3.15609756098 222% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 33.7804878049 68% => OK
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: 818.0 965.302439024 85% => OK
No of words: 169.0 196.424390244 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.84023668639 4.92477711251 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.60555127546 3.73543355544 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.29812917613 2.65546596893 87% => OK
Unique words: 91.0 106.607317073 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.538461538462 0.547539520022 98% => OK
syllable_count: 229.5 283.868780488 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.482926829268 621% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 16.0 22.4926829268 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.254645084 43.030603864 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.8 112.824112599 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.9 22.9334400587 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.1 5.23603664747 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 3.70975609756 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.09268292683 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.24488003284 0.215688989381 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11473043624 0.103423049105 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0954900862515 0.0843802449381 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.200996886431 0.15604864568 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.103417352793 0.0819641961636 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.8 13.2329268293 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 72.16 61.2550243902 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 10.3012195122 70% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.5 11.4140731707 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.42 8.06136585366 92% => OK
difficult_words: 32.0 40.7170731707 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 11.4329268293 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.9970731707 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => OK
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.