The plans below show the changes at a small theater in 2010 and 2012

Essay topics:

The plans below show the changes at a small theater in 2010 and 2012.

The plans illustrate various modifications a small theater had undergone from 2010 to 2012. Looking from an overall perspective, the place had been expanded and developed, as reflected in its inclusion of new facilities and rearrangement of existing ones.

The central area of the theater was the auditorium with 2 lines of 16 chairs in total, which is situated in front of a stage. While the former was kept unchanged, the latter was extended towards the back. Nonetheless, the most significant alteration was done to the area surrounding the stage. In 2010, there was a section for storage to the left of the stage and a media area immediately behind. After 2 years, while storage had been relocated across the room, its former location had been lengthened to accommodate not only the media but also a room for showers. The area behind the stage was consequently utilized as a hall.

The entrance area had also experienced a major reconfiguration. The 2010 layout was characterized by a block of an admin office and a ticket office to the left of the main entrance and a café on the right. However, in 2011 the ticket office and café had been swapped, with the latter developed into 2 abutting restaurants at the bottom left corner of the theater, next to the relocated admin office.

Votes
Average: 7.3 (1 vote)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2024-10-04 hien3112 78 view
2024-09-09 Ahmad_off 84 view
2024-09-09 Ahmad_off 84 view
2024-09-08 mrsaidovs@mail.ru 70 view
2024-08-16 Saul 67 view
Essays by user Quân Lê 2020 :

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 65, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...so experienced a major reconfiguration. The 2010 layout was characterized by a bloc...
^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, however, if, look, nonetheless, so, then, while

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 7.0 171% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 2.0 5.60731707317 36% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 33.7804878049 92% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 3.97073170732 176% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1073.0 965.302439024 111% => OK
No of words: 221.0 196.424390244 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85520361991 4.92477711251 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.85565412703 3.73543355544 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88133341822 2.65546596893 109% => OK
Unique words: 119.0 106.607317073 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538461538462 0.547539520022 98% => OK
syllable_count: 335.7 283.868780488 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.33902439024 184% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.07073170732 374% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 8.94146341463 123% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.4926829268 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.0907172992 43.030603864 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.5454545455 112.824112599 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0909090909 22.9334400587 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.54545454545 5.23603664747 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 3.70975609756 27% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.09268292683 220% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.116616421676 0.215688989381 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0508038719092 0.103423049105 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0950277817255 0.0843802449381 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0932243667577 0.15604864568 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0630700828782 0.0819641961636 77% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.2329268293 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 61.2550243902 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.3012195122 96% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.91 11.4140731707 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.06136585366 106% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 40.7170731707 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.4329268293 74% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.9970731707 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.