The pictures describe the cutting tools created by our ancestors at two different ages
The pictures demonstrate the sliding tools manufactured by the prehistoric human at two different eras which are 1.4 and 0.8 million years ago. Overall, the carving equipment were undergone the growing and smoothing tendency over the years.
It is clear that the cutting gadget of 1.4 million years ago were extremely primitive with unshaped font view form made of rock. The tool A had rough-hewn surface with unclear shape and was approximately seven centimeters long. In the side view, we can see a lumpy flat form of the tools. Looking at the back, the device had the point head for cutting purpose and gently ballooned at the bottom.
After 0.6 million years of evolution, the tools had developed ad transformed into the more skillful equipment. Taking an overall look, it could be easily recognized that the tool B has larger shape which was about ten centimeters long. The front of the gadget was remade to have the teardrop form. Although, the tool had been shaped but it still didn’t have the smooth front surface, similar to the tool A. The most different of the tool B came from the side when it had the smooth surface with the leaf –shape. Looking at the back view, the equipment B was closely double the back size of tool A but still remained the pointy character of the previous tool.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 601, Rule ID: A_BUT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'a bit'?
Suggestion: A bit
...as closely double the back size of tool A but still remained the pointy character of ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, look, still
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 7.0 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 1.00243902439 200% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 7.0 5.60731707317 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 24.0 33.7804878049 71% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 3.97073170732 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1086.0 965.302439024 113% => OK
No of words: 227.0 196.424390244 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.78414096916 4.92477711251 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.88156143495 3.73543355544 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48135354408 2.65546596893 93% => OK
Unique words: 133.0 106.607317073 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5859030837 0.547539520022 107% => OK
syllable_count: 321.3 283.868780488 113% => 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: 9.0 4.33902439024 207% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 26.00787808 43.030603864 60% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.5 112.824112599 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9166666667 22.9334400587 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.66666666667 5.23603664747 32% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.09268292683 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.192955253277 0.215688989381 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0690790920193 0.103423049105 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0674270779784 0.0843802449381 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.139834550907 0.15604864568 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0318074043394 0.0819641961636 39% => 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: 10.5 13.2329268293 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 70.13 61.2550243902 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 10.3012195122 77% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.44 11.4140731707 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.06136585366 102% => OK
difficult_words: 53.0 40.7170731707 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.4329268293 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.9970731707 84% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.