The pie charts above give a percentage of the Parkway Hotel’s customer service rating in 2005 and 2010.
It is clear from the chart that the number of visitors who rated for the service satisfactory, poor or very poor decreased significantly in 2010. Whereas, guests who felt the service was good or excellent increased rapidly at the same time.
By 2005, satisfactory percentage vote accounted for almost half of the pie with 45% vote while the number of people who voted excellence was the least (5%). But in contrast, the more people voted excellence for the hotel (28% in 2010), fewer people voted satisfaction for it (17% in 2010). The amount of good vote became the largest with the point 39% by 2010 and the least percentage was for to the very poor vote with 4% at that time though it was 15% in 2005. With the same decrease of very poor vote, a few people tended to vote for the customer service poor with the percentage 21% and 12% in 2005 and 2010 respectively.
The pie charts above give a percentage of the Parkway Hotel’s customer service rating in 2005 and 2010.
It is clear from the chart that the number of visitors who rated for the service satisfactory, poor or very poor decreased significantly in 2010. Whereas, guests who felt the service was good or excellent increased rapidly at the same time.
By 2005, satisfactory percentage vote accounted for almost half of the pie with 45% vote while the number of people who voted excellence was the least (5%). But in contrast, the more people voted excellence for the hotel (28% in 2010), fewer people voted satisfaction for it (17% in 2010). The amount of good vote became the largest with the point 39% by 2010 and the least percentage was for to the very poor vote with 4% at that time though it was 15% in 2005. With the same decrease of very poor vote, a few people tended to vote for the customer service poor with the percentage 21% and 12% in 2005 and 2010 respectively.
- The line chart above compares the amount of beef, pork, broilers and turkey, which the Americans consumed each year between 1995 and 2012.It is clear from the chart that both broilers and turkey flesh eating, increased significantly from 1960 to 2012 whil 78
- The line graph above illustrates variations in the average prices of food and oil on a global scale in 11 years from 2000 to 2011.Overall, there’re striking similarities in the way two values change through over one decade, which show the clearest diff 73
- The line graph compares the average price of abarrel of oil with the food price index over aperiod of 11 years.It is clear that average global prices of both oil andfood rose considerably between 2000 and 2011.Furthermore, the trends for both commoditiesw 56
- The pie charts above compare figures of the population age of Yemen and Italy in the year 2000 and estimations on those statistics in 2050.It is clear from the graphs that the people of the between 15 and 59 in the two countries account for a large propor 73
- The line chart above gives information on the figure for British city workers travelling every day to work by the three common kinds of transport from 1970 to 2030.It is clear from the graph that the quickly rising number of people who went and will go to 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, whereas, while, as for, in contrast
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 : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 33.7804878049 77% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 803.0 965.302439024 83% => OK
No of words: 175.0 196.424390244 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.58857142857 4.92477711251 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.63713576256 3.73543355544 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52465394679 2.65546596893 95% => OK
Unique words: 88.0 106.607317073 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.502857142857 0.547539520022 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 235.8 283.868780488 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
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: 7.0 8.94146341463 78% => 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: 25.0 22.4926829268 111% => OK
Sentence length SD: 26.6504202211 43.030603864 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.714285714 112.824112599 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 22.9334400587 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.28571428571 5.23603664747 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 3.70975609756 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 1.13902439024 263% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.09268292683 24% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.484870389844 0.215688989381 225% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.293892205018 0.103423049105 284% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.248569479381 0.0843802449381 295% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.455013110002 0.15604864568 292% => Maybe some contents are duplicated.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.169474794775 0.0819641961636 207% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.2329268293 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 71.48 61.2550243902 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 10.3012195122 92% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.64 11.4140731707 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.86 8.06136585366 85% => OK
difficult_words: 22.0 40.7170731707 54% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.9970731707 109% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.0658536585 90% => OK
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.