The diagram below shows the development of cutting tools in the Stone Age.
The diagram illustrates the evolution of cutting instruments used by prehistoric men in the Stone Age throughout a 600-year period from 1.4 million years ago.
As can be seen from the diagram, tool B seems to be an ungraded version of tool A after experiencing major changes in terms of size, appearance and sharpness.
In particular, from 1.4 million years ago, tool A was primitive and rudimentary in the length of approximately 8cm. It is shown to be uneven from the front and back view, with the former being bigger and having more blunt edges. The same impression about the edges also can be recorded from the side, which can display little craftsmanship.
Turning to tool B, it is a superior version of tool A after 600 thousands years. The tool is bigger in size, at about 10cm long, and it had tapered into a water-drop shape with a pointy tip. Moreover, it can be seen that the front view was honed more evenly and sharply while the back was more plain. Unlike tool A’s side view, tool B looked from the side is longer, smoother and more refined.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-11-11 | hahoaan | 84 | view |
| 2024-11-10 | Giang Tran | 56 | view |
| 2024-11-09 | Giang Tran | view | |
| 2024-11-02 | Giang Tran | view | |
| 2024-11-02 | Giang Tran | view |
- In some countries young people have become richer healther and live longer but they are less happy What are the causes What can be done to address this situation 73
- Living in a country where you have to speak a foreign language can cause serious social problems as well as practical problems 73
- The chart shows the percentage of women and men in one Asian country who passed when they took their driving test between 1980 and 2010 78
- Village of Chorleywood showing development between 1868 and 1994 78
- In today s world people are constantly surrounded by advertising What do you think of this trend 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 94, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: bigger
... after 600 thousands years. The tool is bigger in size, at about 10cm long, and it had tapered...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, look, moreover, so, while, in particular
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 7.0 186% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 1.00243902439 399% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 33.7804878049 86% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 3.97073170732 50% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 880.0 965.302439024 91% => OK
No of words: 189.0 196.424390244 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.65608465608 4.92477711251 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.70779275107 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57375730118 2.65546596893 97% => OK
Unique words: 109.0 106.607317073 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.57671957672 0.547539520022 105% => OK
syllable_count: 259.2 283.868780488 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
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: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.4926829268 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 24.6025191925 43.030603864 57% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 97.7777777778 112.824112599 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 22.9334400587 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.11111111111 5.23603664747 98% => 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 : 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: 0.164907060332 0.215688989381 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0712225671149 0.103423049105 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0644807873076 0.0843802449381 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112775485246 0.15604864568 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0602585679857 0.0819641961636 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 13.2329268293 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 67.08 61.2550243902 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 10.3012195122 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.75 11.4140731707 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.06136585366 103% => OK
difficult_words: 43.0 40.7170731707 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.4329268293 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.9970731707 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.0658536585 90% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.