The pie charts below show units of electricity production by fuel source in Australia and France in 1980 and 2000.
The Pie charts Illustrates how many units of electricity were generated in Australia and France with the help of five sources of fuel in 1980 and 2000.
Overall, it can be manifested that, between these years, electricity generation in Australia and France had risen, Amongst them, coal was the most preferred in both the year for the former country whereas nuclear power become the pre-dominant source in later one.
First of all, in 1980, Australia generated total of 100 units, from this total generated units half (50 units) was produced by coal alone, whereas, least, only 10 units were acquired from oil. Natural gas and hydro power generated 20 units each. After two decades, the total units of energy produced were inclined and reached to 170 units, also Australia’s dependency on coal to generate electricity remained same because it rocketed and reached to 70% of total energy produced. Similarly, the production of electricity from hydro power were also increased by 16 units (36). In this year, oil and natural gas produced negligible amounts of energy.( 2 units each).
Secondly, France had generated 90 units of electricity in year 1980 and from that, coal as well as natural gas was burn to generate 25 units each. Using the oil and nuclear power the amount of electricity generated were 20 units and 15 units respectively. A mere, Five units were generated by hydropower. In year 2000, the production of electricity was doubled (180 units) compared to the year 1980 and with that, the energy produced from nuclear reached to 126 units, which was the highest amongst all given fuel sources. Electricity generated from coal remained same at 25 units but for oil, it increased by five units. Only 2 units each were generated by nuclear gas and hydro power.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-07-07 | Sajib Ahamed | 67 | view |
| 2024-07-07 | Sajib Ahamed | 67 | view |
| 2023-09-06 | nijam | 67 | view |
| 2023-09-06 | nijam | 61 | view |
| 2023-09-06 | nijam | 61 | view |
- The graph below shows the consumption of fish and some different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004 73
- The diagram below shows the process of milk production
- The pie graphs below show the results of a survey of children s activities
- An increasing number of people are now using dating websites to meet their second halves Do you think this tendency help people or does more harm than good 73
- The pie graphs below show the result of a survey of children s activities The first graph shows the cultural and leisure activities that boys participate in whereas the second graph shows the activities in which girls participant 84
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, second, secondly, similarly, so, well, whereas, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 7.0 186% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 6.8 191% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 10.0 5.60731707317 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 44.0 33.7804878049 130% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1476.0 965.302439024 153% => OK
No of words: 297.0 196.424390244 151% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.9696969697 4.92477711251 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 3.73543355544 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58427982108 2.65546596893 97% => OK
Unique words: 136.0 106.607317073 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.457912457912 0.547539520022 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 462.6 283.868780488 163% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.33902439024 138% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 3.36585365854 178% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 8.94146341463 157% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.4926829268 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 74.0368427314 43.030603864 172% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.428571429 112.824112599 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2142857143 22.9334400587 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.71428571429 5.23603664747 128% => OK
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 : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.09268292683 98% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.29115468636 0.215688989381 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126407801436 0.103423049105 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.111887088292 0.0843802449381 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.241900941081 0.15604864568 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.149668153908 0.0819641961636 183% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.2329268293 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 61.2550243902 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.3012195122 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 11.4140731707 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.6 8.06136585366 94% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 40.7170731707 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 11.4329268293 175% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.9970731707 95% => 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.