The table below gives information on visitor statistics for 1996,1998 and 2000 for various World Heritage sites in Australia.
The table given compares plenty of World Heritage sites located in Australia in terms of the quantity of travellers over a period of four years from 1996 to 2000.
It is clear from the table that Great Barrier Reef was the most appealing destination among tourists. Additionally, an upward trend was recorded in all categories except for the figures of Central Eastern Rainforest Reserve, Shark Bay and Macquarie Island.
In 1996, individuals prioritised to visit Great Barrier Reef with 1,670,000, which overtook the quantity of Central Eastern Rainforest Reserve by a wide margin, at 810,000. Likewise, after having rocketed to 2,950,000 in 1998, the number of visitors to Great Barrier Reef slackened to 3,200,000 in 2000. By contrast, the figure for Central Eastern Rainforest Reserve experienced slow declines to 790,000 and 770,000 in 1998 and 2000 in turn.
Regarding the remaing categories, in 1996, 526,000 travellers decided to have journeys to Blue Mountain, compared to 450,000 preferring Tasmania Wilderness. Meanwhile, the quantity of Shark Bay was dwarfed by that of Tasmania Wilderness, at 84,000, whereas there are only 350 individuals enjoying Macquarie Island. In 2000, this nation witnessed insignificant growths in the figures for Blue Mountain and Tasmania Wilderness to 581,000 and 483,000 respectively, followed by an oscillation saw in that of Tasmania Wilderness to 89,000. Conversely, the quantity of tourists to Macquarie Island declined marginally to 310 in 1998, at which point it rebounded slightly to 330 in 2000.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-09 | Bennhehe | 84 | view |
| 2023-05-03 | vuhungbo | 84 | view |
| 2023-05-03 | lnthuyvan | 80 | view |
| 2022-09-02 | Johndavisvu | 78 | view |
| 2021-10-02 | bepmy2992004 | 67 | view |
- The diagram below shows how the orange juice is produced 73
- The given bar chart compares three distinct nations in terms of the distribution of employment among three areas over a period of 40 years from 1980 to 2020 73
- The diagram shows the development of a particular area between 1995 to the present day 11
- The picture below shows how a hot balloon works Summariez the infomation by selecting and reporting the main features 73
- The picture below shows how a hot balloon works Summariez the infomation by selecting and reporting the main features 56
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, if, likewise, regarding, whereas, while, except for
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 7.0 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 33.7804878049 160% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 3.97073170732 50% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1313.0 965.302439024 136% => OK
No of words: 240.0 196.424390244 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.47083333333 4.92477711251 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.93597934253 3.73543355544 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91461535007 2.65546596893 110% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 106.607317073 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.579166666667 0.547539520022 106% => OK
syllable_count: 356.4 283.868780488 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => 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: 9.0 3.36585365854 267% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.4926829268 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 28.9414927051 43.030603864 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.3 112.824112599 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 22.9334400587 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.3 5.23603664747 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.09268292683 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.169077349321 0.215688989381 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0728640307218 0.103423049105 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0639996304593 0.0843802449381 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120527428249 0.15604864568 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0685516645794 0.0819641961636 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 13.2329268293 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 61.2550243902 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.3012195122 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.74 11.4140731707 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.04 8.06136585366 112% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 40.7170731707 157% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.9970731707 105% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => 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.