The diagram illustrates the improvement of cutting tools in the Stone Age between tool A from 1.4 million years ago and tool B from 0.8 million years ago. It is clear that over 0.6 million years, cutting tools became more effective.
To begin with, it is easy to recognize that the size of the cutting tool 0.8 million years ago is bigger for the comfortable hold. Look at the front view, the body part of tool B became wider equally at both sides and thinner at the top of this tool. Similarly, the back view of the stone lengthens horizontally at all parts of the stone.
On the other hand, the side view of the tool witnessed the sharply thinner in order to cut or split more accurately and easily.
In conclusion, the cutting tool became sharper and bigger. This leads to the improvement of performance for our ancestors in the Stone Age.
- Some people say that modern technology has made shopping today easier while others disagree Discuss both views and give your opinion 61
- The graphs below show the enrolments of overseas students and local students in Australian universities over a ten year period Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant You should write at l 90
- The graph below shows the number of tourists visiting a particular Caribbean island between 2010 and 2017 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
- In some cultures children are often told that they can achieve anything if they try hard enough What are the advantages and disadvantages of giving children this massage 73
- It is suggested that primary children should learn how to grow vegetables and keep animals Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages 56
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 90, Rule ID: FROM_FORM[3]
Message: Did you mean 'form'?
Suggestion: form
...g tools in the Stone Age between tool A from 1.4 million years ago and tool B from 0...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
look, similarly, then, in conclusion, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 7.0 43% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 7.0 5.60731707317 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 26.0 33.7804878049 77% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 699.0 965.302439024 72% => OK
No of words: 153.0 196.424390244 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.56862745098 4.92477711251 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.51700396316 3.73543355544 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42567326968 2.65546596893 91% => OK
Unique words: 84.0 106.607317073 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.549019607843 0.547539520022 100% => OK
syllable_count: 208.8 283.868780488 74% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.4926829268 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.9030742807 43.030603864 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.375 112.824112599 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.125 22.9334400587 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.75 5.23603664747 167% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 3.70975609756 162% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.09268292683 24% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.18736310395 0.215688989381 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0903457089927 0.103423049105 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0369310570251 0.0843802449381 44% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121147587239 0.15604864568 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.042184061383 0.0819641961636 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.7 13.2329268293 73% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 61.2550243902 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 10.3012195122 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.23 11.4140731707 81% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.95 8.06136585366 86% => OK
difficult_words: 23.0 40.7170731707 56% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.9970731707 87% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.0658536585 90% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
More content wanted.
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.