The plans below show the changes at a small theater in 2010 and 2012.
The plans illustrate the modifications that a small theater had undergone between 2010 and 2012. Looking from an overall perspective, it is evident that there had been an expansion of total available space, accompanied by the rearrangement of existing facilities as well as the inclusion of new ones.
In 2010, there used to be a café to the right of the entrance while the opposite accommodated an admin office and a ticket office. As the area to the left was expanded leftward, the admin office was relocated to the top left corner. The former café had been replaced by the ticket office, of which relocation allowed for the inclusion two abutting restaurants.
The central area of the theater, which featured the auditorium with 2 rows of total16 chairs, was maintained. However, several notable alterations had been applied to the stage, which had been expanded towards the back. In the past, the storage was on the left of the stage while the media directly behind. The 2012 reconfiguration was characterized by the moving the storage across the stage as its previous location had been made more spacious to accommodate the media and new showers. The area behind the stage was consequently utilized as a hall.
- It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environment such as South pole Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages 89
- Nowadays more tasks at home and work are being performed by robots Is this a negative or positive development 89
- The plans below show the changes at a small theater in 2010 and 2012 67
- In many countries truancy skipping classes is a worrying problem for both parents and educators What are the causes of truancy What may be the effects on the child and the wider community 89
- Some people believe that a country will benefit greatly if its students study abroad To what extent do you agree or disagree 95
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, however, if, look, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 7.0 186% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 6.8 44% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 4.0 5.60731707317 71% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 33.7804878049 83% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 3.97073170732 126% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1021.0 965.302439024 106% => OK
No of words: 204.0 196.424390244 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00490196078 4.92477711251 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.77926670891 3.73543355544 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85482300984 2.65546596893 108% => OK
Unique words: 114.0 106.607317073 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.558823529412 0.547539520022 102% => OK
syllable_count: 319.5 283.868780488 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.33902439024 161% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.4926829268 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.46047454 43.030603864 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.1 112.824112599 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4 22.9334400587 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.1 5.23603664747 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.09268292683 195% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0952016110574 0.215688989381 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0498613642739 0.103423049105 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105730285266 0.0843802449381 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0771070763226 0.15604864568 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0684292037194 0.0819641961636 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.2329268293 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 61.2550243902 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.3012195122 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 11.4140731707 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.06136585366 111% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 40.7170731707 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.4329268293 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.9970731707 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => 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.