The pie chart sets out the difference in the units of electricity produced by fuel sources of Australia and France in 1980 and 2000
The pie chart sets out the difference in the units of electricity produced by fuel sources of Australia and France in 1980 and 2000.
In general, each country had different features. However, the most significant changes can be seen in the units of coal in Australia and that of nuclear power in France.
It is clear from the chart that in 1980, half of the electricity in Australia was generated by coal, followed by 20 units of natural gas and hydro power each. Only 10 units of electricity production was by oil. In France, coal and natural gas took up 50 units of electricity generation. Oil produced 20 units of electricity, the figures of nuclear power were a little lower while that of hydro power were just under 10.
According to the chart, in 2000, there was a dramatic rise in the number of coal, by almost 40 percent, finishing in the largest number. Hydro power also experienced a steady increase to 36 units after 20 years. However, the figures of natural gas and oil decreased considerably to under 5. And 2000 also witnessed the disappearance of nuclear power. Nevertheless, the opposite was true for France. Nuclear power, in 2000, produced 70 percent of electricity, overtook coal and natural gas to have the highest level. Contrarily, natural gas and hydro power underwent a significant downturn to only 2 units each. Oil, however, had an upward trend, and alongside coal leveled off with 25 units.
- The table shows the number of mobile phones sold in millions for a period of six years Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
- The table shows the number of mobile phones sold in millions for a period of six years Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
- The table shows the number of mobile phones sold in millions for a period of six years Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
- The chart shows the changes 73
- Some young people look forward to a year of travelling a gap year before they begin work or university and see it as a chance to broaden their horizons For others this is an expensive waste of time Discuss both views and give your own opinion 67
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, nevertheless, so, while, as to, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 7.0 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 6.8 147% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 4.0 5.60731707317 71% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 33.7804878049 142% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 3.97073170732 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1179.0 965.302439024 122% => OK
No of words: 244.0 196.424390244 124% => OK
Chars per words: 4.83196721311 4.92477711251 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.95227774224 3.73543355544 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73199008416 2.65546596893 103% => OK
Unique words: 125.0 106.607317073 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.512295081967 0.547539520022 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 365.4 283.868780488 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.482926829268 414% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 3.36585365854 178% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 8.94146341463 168% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.4926829268 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.1314990033 43.030603864 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 78.6 112.824112599 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.2666666667 22.9334400587 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.06666666667 5.23603664747 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 3.70975609756 243% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.09268292683 122% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.322706691358 0.215688989381 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126131459968 0.103423049105 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.238200982371 0.0843802449381 282% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.344561445921 0.15604864568 221% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.380258320526 0.0819641961636 464% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.5 13.2329268293 72% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 61.2550243902 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 10.3012195122 82% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.44 11.4140731707 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.67 8.06136585366 95% => OK
difficult_words: 50.0 40.7170731707 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.4329268293 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.9970731707 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.