The table shows the percentage of students giving good ratings for different aspects of a university in China in 2000, 2005, 2010.
The table compares the proportion of students evaluated for various quality
services of a university in China over a 10-year period starting from 2000.
Overall, the print resources were satisfied with the highest rating from students, the opposite was true for the figure range of modules offered.
In 2000, the percentage of the technical quality was reported at roughly two-thirds, in comparison with 87% and 45% of the print and electronic resources respectively. After 10 years, the rate of the technical quality almost unchanged, in contrast, a significant increase to exactly 89% of the proportion of electronic resources, followed by 91% of the print resources.
On the other hand, three-quarters of the building/ teach facilities were approximately double the statistic of range of modules offered. At the end of this period, there was a slight decrease of 3% in the figure of range of modules offered, meanwhile, the percentage of the building/teaching facilities had ever changed through each year.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-06-22 | Tuệ Nguyễn | 79 | view |
| 2022-01-08 | VietAn97 | 77 | view |
| 2022-01-08 | VietAn97 | view | |
| 2022-01-08 | VietAn97 | view | |
| 2021-09-06 | Giang Tran | 67 | view |
- The main purpose of public libraries is to provide books and they should not waste their limited resources and space on providing expensive hi tech media such as computer software videos and DVDs with this statement 61
- The table shows the percentage of students giving good ratings for different aspects of a university in China in 2000 2005 2010 77
- The pie charts give information about visitors to the US from different countries from 1988 to 1992 73
- The pie charts below show the average household expenditures in Japan and Malaysia in the year 2010
- The pie charts below show the average household expenditures in Japan and Malaysia in the year
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 76, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...f students evaluated for various quality services of a university in China over a...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, so, third, while, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 7.0 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 6.8 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 0.0 3.15609756098 0% => OK
Pronoun: 1.0 5.60731707317 18% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 33.7804878049 104% => 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: 864.0 965.302439024 90% => OK
No of words: 159.0 196.424390244 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.43396226415 4.92477711251 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.55098862472 3.73543355544 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13965640604 2.65546596893 118% => OK
Unique words: 93.0 106.607317073 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.584905660377 0.547539520022 107% => OK
syllable_count: 260.1 283.868780488 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.33902439024 161% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 3.36585365854 178% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 6.0 8.94146341463 67% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 22.4926829268 116% => OK
Sentence length SD: 25.6672077865 43.030603864 60% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 144.0 112.824112599 128% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.5 22.9334400587 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.66666666667 5.23603664747 166% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 3.83414634146 130% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => 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: 0.137705270911 0.215688989381 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0690401711019 0.103423049105 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0737270014319 0.0843802449381 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0897455766345 0.15604864568 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0534243029693 0.0819641961636 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 13.2329268293 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 61.2550243902 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 10.3012195122 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.51 11.4140731707 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.69 8.06136585366 120% => OK
difficult_words: 48.0 40.7170731707 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.4329268293 127% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.9970731707 113% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.0658536585 136% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
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.