the two maps below show an island, before and after the construction of some tourist facilities.
summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The presented picture deliver the comparative of two process land result in the next and previously. It also supply several addition arenas for the visitors. The owner might have improved various buildings depend on the function such as restaurant, reception room, cottages, and provided two types of tracks like footpath and vehicle track.
On the prior area, the location exposed in 100 metres. The land was sufficiently wide and has been planned with coconut trees. The amount of the trees did not have any different although the land was contrived a development. By contrast, that land seems more fascinating with the exceeding a couple of facilities.
The restaurant and reception were put in facing each other to make the guess enter simply. A number of accommodations also surrounded in a little proximity. The people will get satisfaction because there are two options to walk around the area. This was supplied to give freedom about their choices. The different has change dramatically with the explicit improvements.
- In some countries nowadays people prefer variety of foods Which are not grown in their local area So these foods are imported from other regions Do you think the advantages outweight the disadvantage 92
- CELEBRITY 56
- using telephone calls 11
- AN ENTERTAINER 56
- Some organisations believe that their employees should dress smartly. Others value quality of work above appearance.Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 342, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tracks like footpath and vehicle track. On the prior area, the location exposed ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, so, as for, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 7.0 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 1.00243902439 200% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 4.0 5.60731707317 71% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 33.7804878049 62% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 3.97073170732 176% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 869.0 965.302439024 90% => OK
No of words: 165.0 196.424390244 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26666666667 4.92477711251 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.58402463422 3.73543355544 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83653198154 2.65546596893 107% => OK
Unique words: 116.0 106.607317073 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.70303030303 0.547539520022 128% => OK
syllable_count: 264.6 283.868780488 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.33902439024 207% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 3.36585365854 59% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 8.94146341463 134% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 22.4926829268 58% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.4501079553 43.030603864 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 72.4166666667 112.824112599 64% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.75 22.9334400587 60% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 2.41666666667 5.23603664747 46% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 3.70975609756 162% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
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: 0.0452399284551 0.215688989381 21% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.013744125822 0.103423049105 13% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0165956253899 0.0843802449381 20% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0285970817211 0.15604864568 18% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00865229863887 0.0819641961636 11% => 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: 10.3 13.2329268293 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.28 61.2550243902 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 10.3012195122 82% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.69 11.4140731707 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.06136585366 110% => OK
difficult_words: 48.0 40.7170731707 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 11.4329268293 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.9970731707 65% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 11.2359550562 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.