The diagram below shows the development of cutting tools in the Stone Age.
The diagram below shows the development of cutting tools in the Stone Age.
The illustration depicts the evolution of stone cutting tools used by prehistoric men during the period from 1.4 million years ago to 0.8 years ago in the Stone Age.
Overall, it is noticeable that the key difference in the two versions of the cutting tool is the size, with the latter one becoming remarkably larger. Furthermore, tool B appears more refined than tool A according to shape and sharpness.
Tool A, which dated back 1.4 million years ago, was relatively small, primitive and resembled a natural stone, suggesting little craftwork involved. The tool measured approximately 7-8cm in height and 3-4cm in width. From the front and side view, it is clear that Tool A had an oval shape, rough surface and blunt edge.
However, 600,000 years later, the cutting tool used by men in the Stone Age had become more significantly advanced. First of all, they were much larger, nearly doubling the size of the previous version, and displayed a waterdrop shape: fat at the base and aggressively thinner towards a sharp point. Secondly, both front and back sides of the tool were ground more evenly and smoothly. Thus, these features rendered this version to be more superior in terms of cutting efficiency.
| 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 |
- Many people say the gap between rich and poor people is wider as rich people become richer and poor people grow poorer What problems could this situation cause and what measures can be done to address those problem 84
- The graph below shows the number of tourists visiting a particular Caribbean island between 2010 and 2017 78
- The diagram below shows the development of cutting tools in the Stone Age 78
- Nowadays the way many people interact with each other has changed because of technology In what ways has technology affected the type of relationships people make Has this become a positive or negative development 89
- The graph below shows the number of tourists visiting a particular Caribbean island between 2010 and 2017 89
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 76, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ment of cutting tools in the Stone Age. The illustration depicts the evolution o...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, thus, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 7.0 100% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 6.8 132% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 7.0 5.60731707317 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 25.0 33.7804878049 74% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 3.97073170732 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1077.0 965.302439024 112% => OK
No of words: 217.0 196.424390244 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96313364055 4.92477711251 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.8380880478 3.73543355544 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59608612935 2.65546596893 98% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 106.607317073 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.622119815668 0.547539520022 114% => OK
syllable_count: 320.4 283.868780488 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 1.53170731707 261% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 11.0 8.94146341463 123% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.4926829268 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.4845144342 43.030603864 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.9090909091 112.824112599 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7272727273 22.9334400587 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.27272727273 5.23603664747 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 3.83414634146 130% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 1.13902439024 351% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.410682248483 0.215688989381 190% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.180746911051 0.103423049105 175% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.267167829496 0.0843802449381 317% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.328122822337 0.15604864568 210% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.337617198935 0.0819641961636 412% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.2329268293 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 61.2550243902 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 10.3012195122 92% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 11.4140731707 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.06136585366 103% => OK
difficult_words: 51.0 40.7170731707 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.4329268293 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.9970731707 87% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
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.