The pie charts below show units of electricity production by fuel source in Australia and France in 1980 and 2000.
Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The following pie charts depict the amount of electricity which was produced by five different fuels in Australia and France between two decades of 1980 till 2000.
As can be clearly observed from the Australian related pie charts, the majority of electricity was produced through coal in both 1980 and 2000, 50 units and 130 units, respectively. The electricity production by oil and natural gas experienced a dramatic decrease, from 10 units for the first one and 20 units for the second fuel source in 1980, and both reached 2 units in 2000. Meanwhile, the use of hydro power climbed dramatically, 20 units of 1980 to 36 units in 2000.
Turning to France pie charts, nuclear power played a major part in producing electricity. It was 15 units in 1980 and 126 units in 2000. Unlike coal which remained unchanged, that was 25 in both 1980 and 2000, electricity gained from oil rose slightly from 20 units to 25 units. Electricity production by natural gas and hydro power witnessed a sharp decline at the same period. The former one made 25 units in 1980 and the latter contributed to 5 units, then both reached 2 units in 2000.
It is clear that whereas Australia relied on fossil fuels to produce the most of its electricity, more than two-third of France electricity in 2000 was produced through nuclear power. Overall, the total production of both countries became approximately doubled. France produced 90 units in 1980 and 180 units in 2000, in comparison, Australia made 100 units and 170 units, in 1980 and 2000, respectively.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, second, so, then, third, whereas, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 7.0 100% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 6.8 191% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 33.7804878049 124% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1246.0 965.302439024 129% => OK
No of words: 263.0 196.424390244 134% => OK
Chars per words: 4.73764258555 4.92477711251 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02706775958 3.73543355544 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63322740524 2.65546596893 99% => OK
Unique words: 119.0 106.607317073 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.45247148289 0.547539520022 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 367.2 283.868780488 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 3.36585365854 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 1.0 8.94146341463 11% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 263.0 22.4926829268 1169% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 0.0 43.030603864 0% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 1246.0 112.824112599 1104% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 263.0 22.9334400587 1147% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 55.0 5.23603664747 1050% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 3.70975609756 27% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.09268292683 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.334609254724 0.215688989381 155% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.334609254724 0.103423049105 324% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0843802449381 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.248392947303 0.15604864568 159% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0193848397435 0.0819641961636 24% => 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: 132.4 13.2329268293 1001% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -178.55 61.2550243902 -291% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 0.0 6.51609756098 0% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 103.5 10.3012195122 1005% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 11.69 11.4140731707 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 19.5 8.06136585366 242% => Dale chall readability score is high.
difficult_words: 47.0 40.7170731707 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 58.0 11.4329268293 507% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 107.2 10.9970731707 975% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 58.0 11.0658536585 524% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.