The line graph illustrates the amount of electricity produced from energy sources to supply the city of New York from 1980 to 2000.
It can be seen that petroleum experienced a fluctuated trend but was always the primary energy source. Natural gas saw a considerable rise in the same period. Whereas, Coal witnessed a slight decrease in comparison with petroleum and natural gas.
Starting at the highest point; it was about 350 in 1980. Between 1980 to 1985 petroleum rose significantly from about 350 to 600. In the next period, from 1985 to 1990, there was a considerable decline in the amount of petroleum to around 360. In the last 20 years saw a dramatic growth in the amount of petroleum from about 360 to about 720.
The initial amount of coal was at about 210, ranked at second place behind petroleum and higher than the beginning number of natural gas; it was about 100. Between 1980 to 1985, there was a steady trend in the amount of natural gas from about 100 to around 102. Whereas, in the same time, coal experienced a slight climb in the amount from about 210 to 300. In the next 10 years, the amount of natural gas rose enormously in the amount from about 102 to about 480 and overtook the amount of coal in the same period, it was from 300 to about 290. From 1995 to 2000 there was another rise from the amount of natural gas but it was slighter. In contrast, the amount of coal witnessed a period of stability in the amount at the same time.
- the table below gives information on the frequency of using internet by adults in one European country between 2006 to 2010 64
- The table below shows information about the population of New Zealand from 2011 to 2012 by age group 73
- The line graph below shows the percentage of tourists to Scotland who visited four different attractions in Edinburgh Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 61
- The table and chart below show the domestic water use and cost in 5 countries 71
- The given line graph illustrates clients average every year spending on mobile phone national and international land line and services 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, second, so, whereas, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 7.0 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 33.7804878049 213% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 0.0 3.97073170732 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1197.0 965.302439024 124% => OK
No of words: 268.0 196.424390244 136% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.46641791045 4.92477711251 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04607285448 3.73543355544 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.37832378715 2.65546596893 90% => OK
Unique words: 112.0 106.607317073 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.417910447761 0.547539520022 76% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 349.2 283.868780488 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => 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: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 3.36585365854 267% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 8.94146341463 157% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.4926829268 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.489054756 43.030603864 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.5 112.824112599 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1428571429 22.9334400587 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.92857142857 5.23603664747 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 3.70975609756 243% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.09268292683 122% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.253730550293 0.215688989381 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.116286879527 0.103423049105 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.164786741556 0.0843802449381 195% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.244349000552 0.15604864568 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.259078192148 0.0819641961636 316% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.2 13.2329268293 70% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 77.57 61.2550243902 127% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 10.3012195122 70% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 8.65 11.4140731707 76% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.58 8.06136585366 82% => OK
difficult_words: 34.0 40.7170731707 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.4329268293 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.9970731707 87% => OK
text_standard: 7.0 11.0658536585 63% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.