The graphs below show the development of Brindell from 1800 to 2000.
Summarize the key features and make comparisons where relevant.
The maps provide a clear overview of Brindell's evolvement over two decades, specifically being described under three milestones, which are 1800, 1900 and 2000. Although projecting land for living happened dramatically through periods, it still keeps the original frame.
Starting with Brindell essence, in 1800, no human artificial materials were implemented. However, just after a decade, farmland was replaced by an industrial zone and a small village for workers called "Bun Hill". Simultaneously, the great amount of woodland was diminished for the larger of crops and River Stour. That is to say, animal habitats have been gradually lost.
A substantial difference between 1900 and 2000 mainly illustrates the expansion of human demands by which dwindling the square of woodland to reach a low record of less than a half. The remaining was constructed under a part for workers living there named "Bun Hill Park". Moreover, it is obvious to see the housing area and place for factories extended nearly twice, leading to narrow the land should have been recorded as a part of River Stour. The place called "Brindell" was also widened and ended up with a circular border.
To conclude, going along with the times, Brindell has a few significant changes. Nonetheless, it seems to me that humans are taking the home out of animals abruptly.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-12 | Anne020304 | 11 | view |
| 2023-08-12 | Anne020304 | 11 | view |
| 2023-08-12 | Anne020304 | 11 | view |
| 2023-08-12 | Lynne Dao | 11 | view |
| 2023-08-12 | Lynne Dao | 11 | view |
- In many countries around the world rural people are moving to cities so the population in the countryside is decreasing Do you think this is a positive or a negative development 11
- The chart below shows the water levels of 6 cities in Australia in October 2009 and 2010 73
- The graphs below show the development of Brindell from 1800 to 2000 Summarize the key features and make comparisons where relevant 89
- Some people argue that we should do research into our family history Others agree with the view that we should focus on the present and future generations Discuss both these views and give your own opinion 78
- The chart below shows the percentage of the day working adults spent doing different activities in a particular country in 1958 and in 2008 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, moreover, nonetheless, so, still, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 7.0 171% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 33.7804878049 80% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1163.0 965.302439024 120% => OK
No of words: 217.0 196.424390244 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35944700461 4.92477711251 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.8380880478 3.73543355544 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98840020645 2.65546596893 113% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 106.607317073 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.677419354839 0.547539520022 124% => OK
syllable_count: 343.8 283.868780488 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 1.53170731707 261% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 3.36585365854 59% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 8.94146341463 134% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.4926829268 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.9802580297 43.030603864 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.9166666667 112.824112599 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0833333333 22.9334400587 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.58333333333 5.23603664747 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 1.13902439024 263% => Less 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: 0.065809209072 0.215688989381 31% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0245611518077 0.103423049105 24% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0341656359574 0.0843802449381 40% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0430888547395 0.15604864568 28% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0185413047586 0.0819641961636 23% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.2329268293 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 61.2550243902 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.3012195122 100% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.51 11.4140731707 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.48 8.06136585366 118% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 40.7170731707 167% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.4329268293 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.9970731707 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 11.2359550562 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.