A 2008 report on the energy consumption in the USA by fuel from 1980 till now, and its projection till 2030 is picturised in the given line graph.
Overall, it is clear that the fuel consumption from fossil fuels such as petrol and coal had an upper-hand over the others’ and is expected to be the same in future.
As per the chart, in 1980, Americans depended heavily on petrol and oil, and this was approximately 35 quadrillion units. Their next choice was natural gas(20 q units), followed by coal (16 q units). It is also noted that the fuel consumption from other sources (nuclear, solar and hydro-power) was comparatively less, which stood at 4 q units. The trend is seen almost the same at present, when the petrol consumption hits over 40 q units, while coal and natural gas is seen used moderately at around 25 q units. Compared to the consumption pattern in 1980, the dependence on other sources varies slightly, with nuclear power the most favorite (6 q units) and hydro-power the least (3 q units).
By 2030, energy consumption from fossil fuels that is from petrol and coal is expected to rise further. The use of petrol is anticipated to hit nearly 50 q units, which would be almost 20 q units more than that of coal. While the natural gas consumption would remain at an average level, no change is expected in case of other sources
- People have little understanding of the importance of the natural world What are the reasons and how can people learn more about the natural world 78
- The table below shows the amount of waste production in millions of tonnes in six different countries in three different years over a twenty year period
- Universities should accept equal number of male and female students in every subject To what extent do you agree or disagree 61
- The graph below shows the proportion of the population aged 65 and over between 1940 and 2040 in three different countries Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant Cambridge ielts 5 page 29
- Many countries increase the amount of household garbage going to landfill every year What are the causes What can be done to reduce it 90
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 156, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
... others’ and is expected to be the same in future. As per the chart, in 1980, American...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, so, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 7.0 214% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 1.00243902439 200% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 6.8 132% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 3.15609756098 222% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 9.0 5.60731707317 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 34.0 33.7804878049 101% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 3.97073170732 227% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1107.0 965.302439024 115% => OK
No of words: 241.0 196.424390244 123% => OK
Chars per words: 4.59336099585 4.92477711251 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94007293032 3.73543355544 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61641207808 2.65546596893 99% => OK
Unique words: 126.0 106.607317073 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.522821576763 0.547539520022 95% => OK
syllable_count: 325.8 283.868780488 115% => 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: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.07073170732 374% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.482926829268 414% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.4926829268 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.4553652021 43.030603864 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.7 112.824112599 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1 22.9334400587 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.4 5.23603664747 46% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 3.70975609756 189% => 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: 0.134075911514 0.215688989381 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0647583527336 0.103423049105 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0847578755945 0.0843802449381 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114895643744 0.15604864568 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.101732549106 0.0819641961636 124% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.2329268293 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.04 61.2550243902 105% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.3012195122 100% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.64 11.4140731707 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.51 8.06136585366 93% => OK
difficult_words: 41.0 40.7170731707 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.4329268293 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.9970731707 105% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => 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.