The graph below gives information on the population of turtles in India from 1980 to 2012.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant.
The line graph elucidates the proportion of 3 different species of turtles in India from 1980 to 2012. The unit is measured in index. It can be clearly seen from the graph that, the Olive Ridley Turtles was the highest within the projected periods and the figure for Leatherback Turtles gradually plummeted across the periods, which is the least number of population showed amongst turtles.
At the beginning of the period, the number different in turtle population represented the same index (100). After that, the number of Olive Ridley Turtle progressively rose up and reached above 130 in the year 1997. Thereafter, it showed fluctuations within the index frame between 130 and 120 and then it reached at 130 by 2012.
All species and Green turtles showed the similar trend until 1984 (110). The population for Green turtle showed a downward trend till reach at 90 by at the end of the year while all species depicted oscillation and hit figure almost 100. Leatherback turtles presented a sharp increase till 1987 (110) and thereafter showed a dramatic decline throughout given years and reached its number to below 60 in the year 2012.
- The bar chart below shows shares of expenditures for five major categories in the year 2009. 70
- The charts below show the percentage of food budget the average family spent on restaurant meals in different years. The graph shows the number of meals eaten in fast food restaurants and sit-down restaurants. 73
- The pie graphs show the nutritional consistency of two dinners 88
- The three pie charts below show the changes in annual spending by local authorities in Someland in 1980, 1990 and 2000. 93
- The barchart below shows the total number of minutes (in billions) of telephone calls in Australia, divided into three categories, from 2001- 2008.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant. 60
at 90 by at the end of the year
at 90 at the end of the year
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 7.0 out of 9
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 9 10
No. of Words: 192 200
No. of Characters: 927 1000
No. of Different Words: 106 100
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.722 4.0
Average Word Length: 4.828 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.537 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 67 60
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 46 50
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 26 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 21 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.333 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.888 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.222 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.413 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.616 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.091 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 3 4