The graph below shows the proportion of four different materials that were recycled from 1982 to 2010 in a particular country.

Essay topics:

The graph below shows the proportion of four different materials that were recycled from 1982 to 2010 in a particular country.

The chart below illustrates the proportion of four different materials that were recycled in a particular nation from year 1982 to 2010.

It can be seen from the chart that, paper and cardboard significantly climbed up by 80% in year 1994 and later on it was declined about 10% by 2010.while, glass containers slightly fluctuated in between 1986 and 1990, but slowly it was escalating by 60%.

Prior to recycled materials aluminium cans were dramatically rose up Friday 5% to 45% and it was third highest material. whereas, plastic materials recycled as remained stable percent from 1886 to early 2010. It was a least recycled material as compared to others.

Overall, peoples from a nation majority preferred recycle materials were glass containers and aluminium cans went up until the year 2010 and other remaining materials were diminishing down in terms of percentage.

Votes
Average: 5.6 (1 vote)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2020-01-24 aria etemadi 73 view
2020-01-22 ppatel 73 view
2020-01-22 ppatel 73 view
2020-01-22 ppatel 84 view
2020-01-21 ppatel 73 view

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 247, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...6 and 1990, but slowly it was escalating by 60%. Prior to recycled materials a...
^^
Line 5, column 62, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'risen'.
Suggestion: risen
...erials aluminium cans were dramatically rose up Friday 5% to 45% and it was third hi...
^^^^
Line 5, column 122, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Whereas
... 45% and it was third highest material. whereas, plastic materials recycled as remained...
^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, third, whereas, while

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 7.0 129% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 7.0 5.60731707317 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 27.0 33.7804878049 80% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 3.97073170732 25% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 740.0 965.302439024 77% => OK
No of words: 142.0 196.424390244 72% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21126760563 4.92477711251 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.45201032557 3.73543355544 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82558520657 2.65546596893 106% => OK
Unique words: 90.0 106.607317073 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.633802816901 0.547539520022 116% => OK
syllable_count: 210.6 283.868780488 74% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 3.36585365854 30% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 6.0 8.94146341463 67% => 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: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.2276839294 43.030603864 161% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.333333333 112.824112599 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6666666667 22.9334400587 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.23603664747 95% => OK
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: 5.0 4.09268292683 122% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.377811873541 0.215688989381 175% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.218478654293 0.103423049105 211% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.18513957058 0.0843802449381 219% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.27478900904 0.15604864568 176% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.208216053604 0.0819641961636 254% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.2329268293 113% => 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: 13.23 11.4140731707 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.06136585366 106% => OK
difficult_words: 34.0 40.7170731707 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.4329268293 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------
More content wanted.
Minimum 150 words wanted.

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.