The pie chart illustrates the proportion of electricity production by various fuel resources, including coal, natural gas, hydropower, and nuclear power. The given information is for Australia and France in 1980 and 2000,
From an overall perspective, it can be observed that the usage of coal as a fuel source in Australia is common in 1980 and 2000. In contrast, French engineers use coal and natural gas as the first source of fuel with an equal amount in 1989. However, nuclear power with a significant rise in usage had the highest rank of production in France in 2000.
The first row of pie charts displays data about Australia. The first figure presents that the coal with 50 electricity production was the primary source in 1980. Meanwhile, the hydropower and natural gas with 20 units had equal proportions, and oil with 10 units had the lowest rank. However, the consumption of coal by 80 units increment remained at the first rank in 2000, natural gas and oil usage fall dramatically and gain 2 units of electricity production in 2000.
The second row shows information about France. As it can be seen the coal and natural gas with 25 units were the first source of electricity in 1989. In contrast, hydropower accounts for 5 units of electricity production and has the lowest rank. After 20 years, nuclear power usage with 111 units increment became the major source, and hydropower and natural gas with 2 units of production have the minor proportion.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 346, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...est rank of production in France in 2000 The first row of pie charts displays dat...
^^^
Line 3, column 279, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nd oil with 10 units had the lowest rank However the consumption of coal by 80 un...
^^
Line 3, column 464, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... units of electricity production in 2000 The second row shows information about F...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, second, so, while, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 7.0 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 1.00243902439 200% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 6.8 191% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 4.0 5.60731707317 71% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 33.7804878049 112% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 3.97073170732 327% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1192.0 965.302439024 123% => OK
No of words: 249.0 196.424390244 127% => OK
Chars per words: 4.78714859438 4.92477711251 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.97237131171 3.73543355544 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67595276755 2.65546596893 101% => OK
Unique words: 99.0 106.607317073 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.397590361446 0.547539520022 73% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 360.9 283.868780488 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 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: 249.0 22.4926829268 1107% => 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: 1192.0 112.824112599 1057% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 249.0 22.9334400587 1086% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 50.0 5.23603664747 955% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 1.69756097561 177% => 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: 0.392568362905 0.215688989381 182% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.392568362905 0.103423049105 380% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0843802449381 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.278302945664 0.15604864568 178% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.051821416231 0.0819641961636 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 125.6 13.2329268293 949% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -164.34 61.2550243902 -268% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 0.0 6.51609756098 0% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 98.0 10.3012195122 951% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 11.98 11.4140731707 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 18.27 8.06136585366 227% => Dale chall readability score is high.
difficult_words: 36.0 40.7170731707 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 56.0 11.4329268293 490% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 101.6 10.9970731707 924% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 126.0 11.0658536585 1139% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.