The table shows percentage of students giving good rating for different aspects of a university in China in 2000, 2005, 2010.
The given graph provides information about students good voting by five different types at the university in China in three years 2000, 2005, and 2010.
Overall, it is clear that while most students voting for Technical Quality, Print Resources, and Electronic resources rose significantly, the opposite was true for Range of modules offered. Also, the number of Print resources was the highest good voting and Range of modules offered was lowest during the period.
In 2000, most students voting for Print Resources at 87%, 63% of Technical quality, and only 45% of Electronic resources. Between 2000 to 2010, the percentage of Print resources increased to 95% before falling a less roughly 91% in 2010. The technical quality remained stable from 2000 until 2005, after that rising slightly to 69% in 2010. The proportion of Electronic resources rose by 2 times as much as in 2010 compared to this number in 2000.
According to the table, the number of Range of modules offered at 26% in 2010, after decreased gradually from 33% and 30% in 2000 and 2005 respectively. Building/teaching facilities unchanged from 2000 to the end of the year.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-06-22 | Tuệ Nguyễn | 79 | view |
- The chart below shows International migration in UK. 78
- The pie charts below show the comparison of different kinds of energy production in France in two years. 61
- The table shows percentage of students giving good rating for different aspects of a university in China in 2000 2005 2010 69
- The pie charts show the average consumption of food in the world in 2008 compared to two countries; China and India. 61
- The table below shows the percentage of students giving good rating for different aspects of a university in China in 2000, 2005, 2010. 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, so, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 7.0 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 4.0 5.60731707317 71% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 33.7804878049 121% => 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: 958.0 965.302439024 99% => OK
No of words: 189.0 196.424390244 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06878306878 4.92477711251 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.70779275107 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75725855421 2.65546596893 104% => OK
Unique words: 103.0 106.607317073 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.544973544974 0.547539520022 100% => OK
syllable_count: 269.1 283.868780488 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.33902439024 161% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.482926829268 621% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.4926829268 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.1838852399 43.030603864 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.444444444 112.824112599 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 22.9334400587 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.11111111111 5.23603664747 40% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 3.70975609756 189% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.09268292683 49% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.269586394592 0.215688989381 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11694100478 0.103423049105 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0775212625864 0.0843802449381 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.175586878904 0.15604864568 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0932761415277 0.0819641961636 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.2329268293 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 67.08 61.2550243902 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 10.3012195122 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 11.4140731707 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.06136585366 105% => OK
difficult_words: 45.0 40.7170731707 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.9970731707 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => 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.