The charts 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.
The chart compares the value of exports in different kinds of products (measured in billions) in one country in 2015 and 2016. The table shows the change in percentage of each category in 2016 compared with 2015.
In general, the data can be divided into two groups: the first one where the value in 2016 exceeded that in 2015 and the other one where the reverse was the case.
The first group consists of petroleum products, engineered goods, agricultural products and textiles. Specifically, the difference was the largest in textiles, where 15.24% was recorded for the increase. In engineered goods, the gap was also significant with a growth of 8.5%. In petroleum products, the value in 2016 was also higher than that in 2015, but the disparity was much smaller (3%). The agricultural products lied last, rising only 0.81%.
In the second group, it is instantly clear that only the value of gems and jewelry fell by 5.18% in 2016.
Overall, it is apparent that in 2016, more practical products were exported, whereas the opposite was true for the remaining ornaments. Besides, the year of 2016 witnessed a significant increase in the export of textiles.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...category in 2016 compared with 2015. In general, the data can be divided into...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... one where the reverse was the case. The first group consists of petroleum pr...
^^^^^
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...oducts lied last, rising only 0.81%. In the second group, it is instantly cle...
^^^^^
Line 15, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s and jewelry fell by 5.18% in 2016. Overall, it is apparent that in 2016, mo...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, if, second, so, whereas, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 7.0 157% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 3.15609756098 222% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 33.7804878049 92% => 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: 989.0 965.302439024 102% => OK
No of words: 195.0 196.424390244 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07179487179 4.92477711251 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.73687570622 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61548516649 2.65546596893 98% => OK
Unique words: 106.0 106.607317073 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.54358974359 0.547539520022 99% => OK
syllable_count: 278.1 283.868780488 98% => 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: 9.0 4.33902439024 207% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 8.94146341463 123% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.4926829268 76% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.585958525 43.030603864 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.9090909091 112.824112599 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7272727273 22.9334400587 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.63636363636 5.23603664747 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 3.83414634146 130% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 1.69756097561 236% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 3.70975609756 216% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
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: 0.349400943456 0.215688989381 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.144799621394 0.103423049105 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.190241786785 0.0843802449381 225% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.220597623912 0.15604864568 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.240092734706 0.0819641961636 293% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 13.2329268293 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 71.14 61.2550243902 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 10.3012195122 74% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.83 11.4140731707 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.88 8.06136585366 98% => OK
difficult_words: 42.0 40.7170731707 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.4329268293 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.9970731707 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => 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.