The pie chart below shows the main reasons why agricultural land becomes less productive. The table shows how these causes affected three regions of the world during the 1990s.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The pie chat depics the factors that negatively affect the producing of global agricultural lands while the table provides the percentage of factors of land degradation in 3 regions such as North America, Europe and Oceania in the 1990s.
According to the pie chart, it can be clearly seen that the major factors which caused the worlwilde land degradation is over-gazing that was accounted for 35%. The next negative reason was deforestration making 30% of whole land degradation. The third factor that reached about 28% is over-cultivating. The last one cause which was called "other" was accounted for about 7%. According to the table, the most damaged agricultural area was located in Europe and it was making 23% of total degradated lands. Moreover, the key factor of damaging European lands is deforestration and it makes 9,8%. Oceania, which uncluded a large group of Australian and South Pacific Islands and New Zeland, was taking the 2nd place with 13% of whole damaged agricultural lands and the main reason is over-grazing, which is accounted for 11%. The least place takes North America that overall degradated area was 5% and the major factor was also over-grazing. Interestingly, the over-cultivation did not impact on damaging agricultural land in Oceania and the proportion was 0%, also the percentage of deforestration in North America was low and made only 0,2%.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 304, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... reached about 28% is over-cultivating. The last one cause which was called 'o...
^^^
Line 2, column 508, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nd it was making 23% of total degradated lands. Moreover, the key factor of damag...
^^
Line 2, column 792, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...gricultural lands and the main reason is over-grazing, which is accounted for 11%...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, moreover, so, third, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 7.0 243% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 6.8 132% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 3.15609756098 285% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 8.0 5.60731707317 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 25.0 33.7804878049 74% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 3.97073170732 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1168.0 965.302439024 121% => OK
No of words: 224.0 196.424390244 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21428571429 4.92477711251 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86867284054 3.73543355544 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14852117457 2.65546596893 119% => OK
Unique words: 121.0 106.607317073 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.540178571429 0.547539520022 99% => OK
syllable_count: 358.2 283.868780488 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.33902439024 184% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.4926829268 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.9613589264 43.030603864 144% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.8 112.824112599 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4 22.9334400587 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5 5.23603664747 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 2.0 3.83414634146 52% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 1.69756097561 177% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 1.13902439024 527% => 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: 0.110786517147 0.215688989381 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0494004634211 0.103423049105 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0448113645795 0.0843802449381 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115523382213 0.15604864568 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0370702280338 0.0819641961636 45% => 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: 14.3 13.2329268293 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 61.2550243902 80% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.51609756098 172% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.3012195122 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 11.4140731707 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.39 8.06136585366 104% => OK
difficult_words: 52.0 40.7170731707 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.4329268293 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.9970731707 98% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => 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.