The charts compare the proportion of energy produced by different sources in France in 1995 and 2005.
The pie chart illustrates the percentage of five types of energy generation in France from 1995 to 2005
Overall, coal and gas were the most significant sources of energy in both years, whereas nuclear and other kinds of fuel generated the least amount of energy in France. While all types of energy were seen with increases in their production, the petro-generated energy declined significantly in the examined period
In 1995, coal constituted the largest fraction of the whole chart with 29.80%, followed by gas with 29.63%. Ten years later, these energy sources showed only a very steady growth of about a mere 1%, from 29.80% to 30.93% for coal and 29.63% to 30.31% for gas, collectively made up over half the energy production
With regard to the remaining methods of producing energy, there was an approximate 5%. Increase in production from both nuclear and other sources to 10.10% and 9.10% respectively. On the other hand, petro was the only fuel of energy which decreased in production from 29.27% in 1995 to around a fifth ( 19.55% ) in 2005
- Today food travels thousands of miles before it reaches customers Why is this so Is this a positive or negative trend 78
- The table data shows the proportion of income adults and children spent on 4 common items in the United Kingdom in 2005 73
- The picture below shows the recycling process of wasted glass bottles Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 61
- The diagram below shows the process for recycling plastic bottles Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 61
- The diagram illustrates the process that is used to manufacture bricks for the building industry
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 301, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...on from 29.27% in 1995 to around a fifth 19.55% in 2005
^^
Line 7, column 309, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...29.27% in 1995 to around a fifth 19.55% in 2005
^^
Line 7, column 318, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... 1995 to around a fifth 19.55% in 2005
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, so, whereas, while, with regard to, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 7.48453608247 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 4.92783505155 0% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 5.05154639175 99% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.03092783505 33% => OK
Pronoun: 2.0 32.9175257732 6% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 26.3917525773 152% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 3.85567010309 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 884.0 937.175257732 94% => OK
No of words: 177.0 206.0 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.99435028249 4.54256449028 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.64748333727 3.78020617076 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65718173369 2.54303337028 104% => OK
Unique words: 104.0 127.690721649 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.587570621469 0.622605031667 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 253.8 290.88556701 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.41237113402 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 9.13402061856 11% => OK
Article: 2.0 0.824742268041 243% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 1.83505154639 54% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.463917525773 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 1.44329896907 277% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 5.0 12.6804123711 39% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 35.0 16.3608247423 214% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 80.6934941615 44.8134815571 180% => OK
Chars per sentence: 176.8 76.5299724578 231% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 35.4 16.8248392259 210% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 11.4 4.34317383033 262% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.29896907216 93% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 2.54639175258 118% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 7.41237113402 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.49484536082 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.94845360825 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.240621550979 0.216113520407 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.128468710731 0.0766984524023 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0742590090376 0.0603063233224 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164231649493 0.12726935374 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0782059589854 0.0580467560999 135% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.8 8.37731958763 236% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.87 70.7449484536 75% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 3.82989690722 292% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 7.45979381443 196% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 8.71597938144 141% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.76 7.59969072165 115% => OK
difficult_words: 38.0 41.2886597938 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 8.62886597938 226% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 16.0 8.54432989691 187% => OK
text_standard: 20.0 8.15463917526 245% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
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.