The pie charts below show units of electricity production by fuel source in Australia and France in 1980 and 2000. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The charts compare Australia and France in terms of the proportion of electricity generated by five different fuel sources in 1980 and 2000.
By observing the data, one can see that coal generated by far the highest units of electricity in general. While Australia saw an upward trend in the electricity units produced by coal, its counterpart saw a similar trend in nuclear power.
In 1980, coal was the dominant source in generating electricity in Australia, accounting for half of the total units. Its figure continued rocketing over three-quarters the total units of 170, maintaining its important role in producing electricity. Coal was also the leading source in France in 1980, but its position was replaced by nuclear power with the massive production of 126 units of electricity in 2000, and the figure for coal remained stable at 25 units. Notably, nuclear power was not utilized for the electricity generation in Australia.
Hydro power and natural gas shared the same electricity units proportion in the first year surveyed in Australia, particularly 20 units. A rise was then seen for hydro power by 14 units, whereas the units generated by natural gas shrank to a minimal amount of 2 units, similar to the trend of oil. The average units of electricity produced by hydro power and natural gas in France were roughly 20 units and their figures decreased dramatically to 2 units, while the data for oil remained relatively stable at averagely 23 units.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-06-04 | Trương Bảo Kiên | 78 | view |
| 2023-06-04 | Trương Bảo Kiên | 73 | view |
| 2023-06-04 | Trương Bảo Kiên | 67 | view |
| 2023-06-04 | Trương Bảo Kiên | 89 | view |
| 2022-10-07 | Blackcytrus | 74 | view |
- The diagrams below give information on transport and car use in Edmonton 78
- The diagram below shows how photographs can be produced using digital photographic equipment 66
- The diagrams illustrate the process of building an igloo 61
- The table below shows statistics about the top five countries for international tourism in 2012 and 2013 84
- The chart shows air pollution levels by different causes among four countries in 2021 Summaries the information by selecting and reporting the main features and making comparisons where relevant 92
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, so, then, whereas, while, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 7.0 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 33.7804878049 121% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 3.97073170732 126% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1230.0 965.302439024 127% => OK
No of words: 243.0 196.424390244 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06172839506 4.92477711251 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94822203886 3.73543355544 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83274079235 2.65546596893 107% => OK
Unique words: 119.0 106.607317073 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.489711934156 0.547539520022 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 393.3 283.868780488 139% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => 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: 24.0 22.4926829268 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.5747633384 43.030603864 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.0 112.824112599 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3 22.9334400587 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.8 5.23603664747 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 3.70975609756 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.193405355777 0.215688989381 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100215563968 0.103423049105 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0744727084312 0.0843802449381 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155474747108 0.15604864568 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0842835136311 0.0819641961636 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 13.2329268293 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 61.2550243902 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 10.3012195122 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 11.4140731707 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.06136585366 104% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 40.7170731707 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.4329268293 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.9970731707 105% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.