The graph below gives information about international tourist arrivals in five countries. Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The line graph compares the information about international tourists visited in Brazil, Egypt, Malaysia, France and the USA. The number of tourists represents in millions.
Overall, the number of tourists increased in given five countries in a given time period. It is seen from the graph that the supreme number of tourists visited in the USA whereas the least number of tourists visited in brazil.
In 1995, around 70 millions international tourists visited the USA followed by France and Malaysia, which were approximately 30 millions and 21 millions respectively. The almost same number of (around 9 millions) visitors visited Egypt and Brazil in 1995. It is interesting to note that the number of tourist arrivals rising rapidly in France in 2000, which was around 60 millions. In 2000, visitors growing gradually in the USA and reach just over 80 millions.
Egypt and Brazil follow the same pattern in a given time period but the number of tourist arrivals in Egypt slightly higher than in Brazil in 2010. After 2005, the growth of tourist arrivals in Malaysia became high in 2010 and reach approximately 45 millions. In France, visitors enlarging rapidly and reach the same as the USA and became a high of (around 90 millions) given time period.
- The graph below show the participation of Australian children in sports outside school hours in 2014 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparison where relevant 72
- The graph below gives information about international tourist arrivals in five countries. Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 67
- The graph below shows the sales of children's books, adult fiction and educational books between 2002 and 2006 in one country. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant. 73
- The following graphs illustrate electronic gaming trends in South Korea in 2006 The first outlines gamer age groups and gender demographics The second indicates game type preference Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features an 84
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, whereas
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 : 10.0 6.8 147% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 4.0 5.60731707317 71% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 33.7804878049 112% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 3.97073170732 25% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1056.0 965.302439024 109% => OK
No of words: 208.0 196.424390244 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07692307692 4.92477711251 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.79765784423 3.73543355544 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66023130974 2.65546596893 100% => OK
Unique words: 93.0 106.607317073 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.447115384615 0.547539520022 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 314.1 283.868780488 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 8.94146341463 123% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.4926829268 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.8580719544 43.030603864 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.0 112.824112599 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9090909091 22.9334400587 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.09090909091 5.23603664747 21% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 3.70975609756 270% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More 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: 0.122384488042 0.215688989381 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0585186382127 0.103423049105 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0581831081566 0.0843802449381 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103116127217 0.15604864568 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0670802292807 0.0819641961636 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 13.2329268293 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 61.2550243902 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 10.3012195122 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 11.4140731707 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.34 8.06136585366 91% => OK
difficult_words: 37.0 40.7170731707 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.4329268293 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.9970731707 84% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.