The diagrams below show the cutting tools used by man 1.4 million years ago and 88 thousand years ago.
The graphs presented illustrate how the stone-made cutting tool applied by humanoid species has developed throughout the millennia of evolution. We can observe the primitive one which dates back to 1.4 million years ago in comparison with the latter edition going back to 800 thousand years prior.
Overall, it can be obviously realized that the cutting tool has been sharpened so as to meet our ancestors' everyday needs.
The cutting tool belonging to earlier sapiens appears to be quite primitive with merely pointy edges and the least elaborate cuts on all sides. As the point was not rounded enough, it must have caused a great deal of difficulty cutting the hunted preys' flesh. Besides, being rugged on the surface, the earlier version seems not to have been user-friendly.
Millennia of evolution have transformed everything into its optimized function and form; the cutting tool is no exception. Since the early wise man has found it hard to cut objects, they must have thought of a sharper tool to conquer; therefore, we can see from the side view that the tool had been cut more elaborately so that it would cut sharper. The back and front view of the more sophisticated version enjoys a pearl-like shape, which makes it look more elaborate compared to its initial one.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 80, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...hat the cutting tool has been sharpened so as to meet our ancestors everyday needs. Th...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, if, look, so, therefore, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 7.0 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 1.00243902439 599% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 3.0 6.8 44% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 5.60731707317 250% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 25.0 33.7804878049 74% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 3.97073170732 126% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1069.0 965.302439024 111% => OK
No of words: 215.0 196.424390244 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97209302326 4.92477711251 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.82921379641 3.73543355544 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60508302068 2.65546596893 98% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 106.607317073 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.627906976744 0.547539520022 115% => OK
syllable_count: 325.8 283.868780488 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 1.53170731707 326% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 3.36585365854 30% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.8354154969 43.030603864 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.777777778 112.824112599 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8888888889 22.9334400587 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.33333333333 5.23603664747 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 3.70975609756 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 1.13902439024 351% => Less 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: 0.21518259234 0.215688989381 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0764062309559 0.103423049105 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.069690248968 0.0843802449381 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121658625125 0.15604864568 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0726776596604 0.0819641961636 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.2329268293 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 61.2550243902 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.3012195122 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 11.4140731707 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.04 8.06136585366 112% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 40.7170731707 142% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.