The pie charts below show units of electricity production by fuel source in Australia and France in 1980 and 2000.
Summaries the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
Units of electricity by fuel source in Australia
In 1980, Total production 100 units In 2000, Total production 100 units
Coal 50 Coal 130
Natural Gas 20 Natural Gas 2
Nuclear power Nuclear power
Oil 10 Oil 2
Hydro power 20 Hydro power 36
Units of electricity by fuel source in France
In 1980, Total production 90 units In 2000, Total production 180 units
Coal 25 Coal 25
Natural Gas 25 Natural Gas 2
Nuclear power 15 Nuclear power 126
Oil 20 Oil 25
Hydro power 5 Hydro power 2
The pie graphs provide how the information about the amount of electricity which was produced from different sources in Australia and France changed in two separate years, 1980 and 2000.
Overall, it can be seen that the total generation of electricity increased in both countries over the period shown, form 100 units to 170 units in Australia and 90 units to 180 units in France.
Looking at the Australia data sets in more detail, it is clear that electricity production from coal increased from 50 units in 1980 to 130 units in 2000, which was the biggest change on the charts. Similarly, the amount of electricity which was generated from hydropower grew from 20 units to 36 units. The production of electricity from natural and oil both decreased, from 20 units and 10 units respectively in 1980 to 2 units in 2000.
Turing to the second set of pie charts, showing data from France, it is evident that the amount of electricity which was generated from nuclear power increased the most, from 15 units in 1980 to 126 units in 2000. Electricity production from coal remained constant at 25 units in both years. The generation of electricity from oil increased slightly, from 20 units to 25 units over the period shown. Similar to Australia, the amount of electricity which was produced from natural gas decreased from 25 units in 1980 to 2 units in 2000.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-07-07 | Sajib Ahamed | 67 | view |
| 2024-07-07 | Sajib Ahamed | 67 | view |
- The diagram below shows the process of getting a driving licence Write a report for a university lecturer describing the information below 56
- This is questio The graphs below show the different reasons of the groups of students to choose Dorrifod University Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant Age 18 24 Age 25 and over Close 73
- Question The chart below shows the proportion of the energy produced from different sources in a country between 1985 and 2003 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant In 1985 Oil 52 Nuclea 78
- The pie charts below show units of electricity production by fuel source in Australia and France in 1980 and 2000 Summaries the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant Units of electricity by fuel sourc 67
- The pie charts below show units of electricity production by fuel source in Australia and France in 1980 and 2000 Summaries the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant Units of electricity by fuel sourc 67
Comments
The pie charts illustrate…
The pie charts illustrate the changes in electricity production by fuel source in Australia and France between 1980 and 2000.
Overall, the total electricity production increased significantly in both countries, with Australia rising from 100 to 170 units and France from 90 to 180 units.
In Australia, coal was the predominant source, with production surging from 50 units in 1980 to 130 units in 2000, representing the largest change. Hydropower also saw a notable increase from 20 units to 36 units. In contrast, electricity generated from natural gas and oil decreased sharply, both dropping from 20 and 10 units respectively to just 2 units by 2000.
In France, the most significant change was in nuclear power, which escalated dramatically from 15 units in 1980 to 126 units in 2000. Electricity production from coal remained unchanged at 25 units. Oil production experienced a slight increase from 20 units to 25 units. Similar to Australia, the contribution of natural gas to electricity production plummeted, falling from 25 units in 1980 to 2 units in 2000. Hydropower also saw a reduction from 5 units to 2 units over the same period.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, look, second, similarly, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 7.0 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 3.15609756098 253% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 33.7804878049 160% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 3.97073170732 151% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1135.0 965.302439024 118% => OK
No of words: 235.0 196.424390244 120% => OK
Chars per words: 4.82978723404 4.92477711251 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91531732006 3.73543355544 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66545392674 2.65546596893 100% => OK
Unique words: 100.0 106.607317073 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.425531914894 0.547539520022 78% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 328.5 283.868780488 116% => 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: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.4926829268 116% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.1783980281 43.030603864 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.111111111 112.824112599 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.1111111111 22.9334400587 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.44444444444 5.23603664747 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 3.70975609756 162% => 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: 0.293849327426 0.215688989381 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.178366663806 0.103423049105 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0436894186696 0.0843802449381 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.218481253173 0.15604864568 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0145551539093 0.0819641961636 18% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.2329268293 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 62.01 61.2550243902 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.3012195122 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.03 11.4140731707 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.34 8.06136585366 91% => OK
difficult_words: 36.0 40.7170731707 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 11.4329268293 166% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.9970731707 113% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
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.