The chart below shows the value of one country's exports in various categories during 2015 and 2016. The table shows the percentage change in each category of exports in 2016 compared with 2015.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The vertical bar chart indicates how much objects exported from a country was worth in 2015 and 2016, and only five types of objects are considered. The table illustrates the percentage changes of these in the second year compared to the first.
Four of these groups saw an increase throughout the period. The petroleum products, which accounted for the most earning by about 60 billion dollars, experienced a rise of 3%, reaching to a little more than the initial value. Engineered goods were at the second place in terms of highest earning, and its figure climbed from around 55 billion dollars to just over 60 billion, which was an increase of 8.5%. Agricultural products the fourth and textiles the fifth highly valued among these, observed the least and the most growth in figure, by 0.81% and 15.24% respectively.
The only type of exported items that had a descending trend in this period was the gems and jewellery. Declining from approximately 45 billion dollars to slightly more than 40 billion, it saw a decrease of a mere 5.18%.
Overall, while the figures for most of these five products rose between 2015 and 2016, that of gems and jewellery dropped. Despite changes in earnings, there was no difference in rankings of these objects.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-03-29 | minhnhat2002 | 78 | view |
| 2024-01-20 | hoaithuongnguyen283 | 84 | view |
| 2024-01-20 | hoaithuongnguyen283 | 80 | view |
| 2024-01-20 | hoaithuongnguyen283 | 73 | view |
| 2023-12-09 | Tosyne | 78 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 38, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
The vertical bar chart indicates how much objects exported from a country was wor...
^^^^
Line 3, column 237, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... more than the initial value. Engineered goods were at the second place in terms ...
^^
Line 3, column 279, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'of the highest'.
Suggestion: of the highest
...goods were at the second place in terms of highest earning, and its figure climbed from ar...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, if, second, well, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 7.0 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 6.8 132% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 10.0 5.60731707317 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 35.0 33.7804878049 104% => 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: 1048.0 965.302439024 109% => OK
No of words: 211.0 196.424390244 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96682464455 4.92477711251 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.81127787577 3.73543355544 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61538385312 2.65546596893 98% => OK
Unique words: 129.0 106.607317073 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.611374407583 0.547539520022 112% => OK
syllable_count: 304.2 283.868780488 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.482926829268 414% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 3.36585365854 59% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.4926829268 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.4266834374 43.030603864 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.8 112.824112599 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1 22.9334400587 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.0 5.23603664747 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 1.69756097561 177% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 3.70975609756 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.09268292683 98% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.120635914914 0.215688989381 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0486560149772 0.103423049105 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.057672599801 0.0843802449381 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0878487235591 0.15604864568 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.083061867509 0.0819641961636 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.2329268293 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
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: 11.55 11.4140731707 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.06136585366 106% => OK
difficult_words: 52.0 40.7170731707 128% => 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: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.