The pictures illustrate the changes in Shipsmouth between 1995 and 2010. Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant
The two pictures highlight the main changes in Ships mouth between the year 1995 and 2010.
Overall, It can be seen that in 1995, Ships mouth was a green city with a lot of trees. But in 2010, it had become urbanized with so many new high-rise buildings, transport facilities, shopping center, sports facilities.
The striking change is that the city was pedestrianized in 2010, which meant that there were some ways for only people who walk. A factory, which is a concern of pollution because of its smoke was converted and replaced by a modern shopping center. Another interesting development is that there were many trees in 1995 in the western north and the eastern south of the city, which was cut down and by 2010, apartment blocks and an airport had been constructed in their places.
If we look at houses in 1995, they were redeveloped to become skyscrapers. Likewise, a church was knocked down to make way for a pub. And it is interesting to note that the construction of a new station and a football stadium in empty lands of the city.
- the graph shows UK acid rain emissions, from 4 different sectors between 1990 to 2007. 67
- the expenditure on fast food by income groups, UK 1990. 61
- The pictures illustrate the changes in Shipsmouth between 1995 and 2010 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 65
- what are the advantages and disadvantages for children of TV? 61
- the expenditure on fast food by income groups, UK 1990. 61
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 59, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e is that the city was pedestrianized in 2010, which meant that there were some w...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, likewise, look, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 7.0 200% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 6.8 118% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 3.15609756098 285% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 12.0 5.60731707317 214% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 26.0 33.7804878049 77% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 3.97073170732 126% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 863.0 965.302439024 89% => OK
No of words: 186.0 196.424390244 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.63978494624 4.92477711251 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.69299088775 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65219473162 2.65546596893 100% => OK
Unique words: 113.0 106.607317073 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.60752688172 0.547539520022 111% => OK
syllable_count: 249.3 283.868780488 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.114634146341 0% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.482926829268 414% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 0.0 3.36585365854 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.4926829268 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.4279609239 43.030603864 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.8888888889 112.824112599 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6666666667 22.9334400587 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.0 5.23603664747 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.09268292683 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.137123178313 0.215688989381 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0610215511646 0.103423049105 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0820733522849 0.0843802449381 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110030878303 0.15604864568 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.101802537334 0.0819641961636 124% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 13.2329268293 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 76.56 61.2550243902 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 10.3012195122 74% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.63 11.4140731707 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.43 8.06136585366 92% => OK
difficult_words: 33.0 40.7170731707 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.9970731707 91% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.