The diagram below shows the development of cutting tools in the Stone Age. Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The diagram illustrates how the cutting instruments used during the Stone Age evolved between 1.4 million and 0.8 million years ago.
Overall, it is clear that Tool B is sharper and more regularly shaped than the earlier Tool A. Over a period of 0.6 million years, the cutting tool also increased in size and effectiveness.
The front view shows that the edges of Tool A are rough, revealing its more earlier stage of development. Whereas Tool A is comparatively primitive, therefore, the smooth edges of Tool B are clearly more effective as a cutting instrument.
One of the main differences between the tools is shown in the side view diagram. While Tool A is irregular, in contrast Tool B has a regular, flattened shape. The sharp edge of Tool B is designed for cutting objects cleanly and easily. Finally, the back view shows most clearly that Tool A is not only rougher, but is also smaller than Tool B.
- Modern technology has greatly influenced people s ways of entertainment making people less creative Do you agree or disagree 67
- The chart below compares the number of people per household by percentage in the UK in 1981 and 2001 73
- As machines have become more sophisticated more and more jobs and tasks involving physical hard work can be done automatically Do the positive effects of this trend outweigh the negative effects 73
- The diagram below shows the development of cutting tools in the Stone Age Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 56
- The table gives statistics showing the aspects of quality of life in five countries Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 45, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...front view shows that the edges of Tool A are rough, revealing its more earlier stage...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 72, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'earlier' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: earlier
...dges of Tool A are rough, revealing its more earlier stage of development. Whereas Tool A is...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, if, so, therefore, whereas, while, as to, in contrast, in contrast to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 7.0 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 13.0 33.7804878049 38% => More preposition wanted.
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: 755.0 965.302439024 78% => OK
No of words: 159.0 196.424390244 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.74842767296 4.92477711251 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.55098862472 3.73543355544 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69113316242 2.65546596893 101% => OK
Unique words: 92.0 106.607317073 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.578616352201 0.547539520022 106% => OK
syllable_count: 227.7 283.868780488 80% => 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: 6.0 4.33902439024 138% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 3.36585365854 59% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.4926829268 76% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 20.270394394 43.030603864 47% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 83.8888888889 112.824112599 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6666666667 22.9334400587 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.88888888889 5.23603664747 189% => OK
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: 3.0 4.09268292683 73% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.212431493495 0.215688989381 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0976799769222 0.103423049105 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0215625739685 0.0843802449381 26% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132861066308 0.15604864568 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0281998208862 0.0819641961636 34% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.8 13.2329268293 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 71.14 61.2550243902 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 10.3012195122 74% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.97 11.4140731707 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.06136585366 102% => OK
difficult_words: 38.0 40.7170731707 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.4329268293 74% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.9970731707 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 45, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...front view shows that the edges of Tool A are rough, revealing its more earlier stage...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 72, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'earlier' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: earlier
...dges of Tool A are rough, revealing its more earlier stage of development. Whereas Tool A is...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, if, so, therefore, whereas, while, as to, in contrast, in contrast to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 7.0 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 13.0 33.7804878049 38% => More preposition wanted.
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: 755.0 965.302439024 78% => OK
No of words: 159.0 196.424390244 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.74842767296 4.92477711251 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.55098862472 3.73543355544 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69113316242 2.65546596893 101% => OK
Unique words: 92.0 106.607317073 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.578616352201 0.547539520022 106% => OK
syllable_count: 227.7 283.868780488 80% => 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: 6.0 4.33902439024 138% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 3.36585365854 59% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.4926829268 76% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 20.270394394 43.030603864 47% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 83.8888888889 112.824112599 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6666666667 22.9334400587 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.88888888889 5.23603664747 189% => OK
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: 3.0 4.09268292683 73% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.212431493495 0.215688989381 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0976799769222 0.103423049105 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0215625739685 0.0843802449381 26% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132861066308 0.15604864568 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0281998208862 0.0819641961636 34% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.8 13.2329268293 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 71.14 61.2550243902 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 10.3012195122 74% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.97 11.4140731707 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.06136585366 102% => OK
difficult_words: 38.0 40.7170731707 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.4329268293 74% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.9970731707 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.