The diagram below shows the development of cutting tools in the Stone Age.
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.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-11-29 | Patrick Nguyen | 84 | view |
- Many university students live with their families, while others live awayfrom home because their universities are in different places. What are theadvantages and disadvantages of both situations? 56
- The charts below give information on the ages of populations of Yemen and Italy in 2000 and projections for 2050. 56
- The graph below shows difference sources of air pollutants in the UK from 1990 to 2005. 73
- The table below shows the amount of waste production (in millions of tonnes) in six different countries over a twenty-year period. 56
- The graph below shows difference sources of air pollutants in the UK from 1990 to 2005. 56
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 35, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Overall
... 1.4 million and 0.8 million years ago.Overall, it is clear that Tool B is sharper and...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, 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 4, 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 i...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
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: 765.0 965.302439024 79% => OK
No of words: 158.0 196.424390244 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.8417721519 4.92477711251 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.54539209256 3.73543355544 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74818405906 2.65546596893 103% => OK
Unique words: 91.0 106.607317073 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.575949367089 0.547539520022 105% => OK
syllable_count: 226.8 283.868780488 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: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.4926829268 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.6389054331 43.030603864 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.625 112.824112599 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.75 22.9334400587 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.125 5.23603664747 212% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 8.0 3.83414634146 209% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 1.69756097561 177% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 3.70975609756 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More 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: 0.344847373476 0.215688989381 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.153155844161 0.103423049105 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0424751054048 0.0843802449381 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15587971857 0.15604864568 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0543054374813 0.0819641961636 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.2329268293 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 61.2550243902 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 10.3012195122 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.79 11.4140731707 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.28 8.06136585366 103% => OK
difficult_words: 37.0 40.7170731707 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.4329268293 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.9970731707 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.