The plans below show a public park when it first opened in 1920 and the same park today.
The two diagrams depict the transformational changes that Grange park has undergone recently and the influence of these reconstruction works on how the park looks now in comparison with original appearance in 1920.
As could be noticed from the maps, the overall infrastructure has changed significantly. The brand new amphitheater for musicians has been introduced in the west-side of the park that once was the home for the simply-constructed stage for musicians. The second progressive development is the situation of the Rose garden with places for seats circling it in the center of the park, to the left of the musical amphitheater. This renovation replaced the fountain and allowed visitors to take pleasure in listening to music while observing astonishing roses.
Looking at the East side of the grange park now, one can distinguish that the Glasshouse constructed in 1920 was replaced by a picturesque water feature. As for this particular change, it has made the overall appearance of the park wilder and created the cool needed in summers from the water. In addition, Rose garden in the upper left side just in Arnold Avenue was demolished and replaced by the Café, while the playground area for children has superseded the pond for water plants.
Overall, the aforementioned changes not only better served the need of the park visitors but also created an amazing place in the town. The well-developed infrastructure was also the result of introduced developments.
- The plans below show a public park when it first opened in 1920 and the same park today 84
- In spite of the advances made in agriculture many people around the world still go hungry Why is this case What can be done about this problem 89
- The diagram below shows how electricity is generated in a hydroelectric power station 67
- The plans below show the layout of a university s sports centre now and how it will look after redevelopment Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 84
- Some people believe that it is best to accept a bad situation such as an unsatisfactory job or shortage of money Others argue that it is better to try and improve such situations 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, look, second, so, well, while, as for, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 7.0 100% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 1.00243902439 299% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 8.0 5.60731707317 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 31.0 33.7804878049 92% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 3.97073170732 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1246.0 965.302439024 129% => OK
No of words: 238.0 196.424390244 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23529411765 4.92477711251 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.92775363542 3.73543355544 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17971467441 2.65546596893 120% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 106.607317073 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.575630252101 0.547539520022 105% => OK
syllable_count: 384.3 283.868780488 135% => 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: 3.0 1.07073170732 280% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 3.36585365854 59% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.5125296583 43.030603864 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.6 112.824112599 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8 22.9334400587 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5 5.23603664747 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 3.70975609756 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.09268292683 122% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.137984227428 0.215688989381 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0555522374584 0.103423049105 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0523764424495 0.0843802449381 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0938392718839 0.15604864568 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0398498202887 0.0819641961636 49% => 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: 15.2 13.2329268293 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 61.2550243902 79% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.51609756098 172% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.3012195122 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.41 11.4140731707 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.89 8.06136585366 110% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 40.7170731707 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 11.4329268293 136% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.0658536585 145% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.