The graph below shows the proportion of four different materials that were recycled from 1982 to 2010 in a particular country.
The line graph represents four various materials ("Paper and cardboard, Glass containers, Aluminium cans and Plastics"), which recycled in a particular country from 1982 to 2010. The units are in percentages from 0 to 90.
Overall, it is clearly seen that all materials show uptrend. However, paper and cardboard and glass containers, after a brief fluctuation, increased; whereas, aluminium cans ascended gradually over the period.
Almost 65% of paper and cardboard materials recycled in 1982 and it increased by 5% after four years. Subsequently, it declined by 5% and thereafter, it rose significantly to reach a peak of 80% in 1994. Then it descended gradually to reach 70% in 2010. Glass containers recycled 50% in 1982, but the recycling rate dropped by 10% till 1990; nevertheless, from 1990 tp 2010, it increased steadily to attain its highest at 60%.
On the other hand, aluminium cans and plastics, during the beginning years, did not recycle; nonetheless, their rate of recycling climbed to approximately 45% and 9% respectively.
- The graph below shows the proportion of four different materials that were recycled from 1982 to 2010 in a particular country. 73
- Write about the following topic.It has been argued that gift giving should not be encouraged, because money is often wasted on things that people do not like or want.To what extent do you agree or disagree with this?Give reasons for your answer and includ 56
- Take a look at the graphic and complete the task.The chart gives information about marriage and children in a selection of countries.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.You should spe 11
- Some people believe that it is best to accept a bad situation, such as an unsatisfactory job or shortage of money. Others argue that it is better to try and improve such situations.Discuss both these views and give your own opinion 67
- Some people claim that not enough of the waste from homes is recycled. They say that the only way to increase recycling is for governments to make it a legat requirement.To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their wast 67
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, nevertheless, nonetheless, then, whereas, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 2.0 7.0 29% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 6.8 147% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 9.0 5.60731707317 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 28.0 33.7804878049 83% => 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: 890.0 965.302439024 92% => OK
No of words: 166.0 196.424390244 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.36144578313 4.92477711251 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.58944267634 3.73543355544 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19009321662 2.65546596893 120% => OK
Unique words: 107.0 106.607317073 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.644578313253 0.547539520022 118% => OK
syllable_count: 242.1 283.868780488 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 1.53170731707 326% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 2.0 4.33902439024 46% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.4926829268 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 54.3404903262 43.030603864 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.8888888889 112.824112599 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4444444444 22.9334400587 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.55555555556 5.23603664747 163% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 3.70975609756 189% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More 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: 0.274372401791 0.215688989381 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101086900629 0.103423049105 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.089995190867 0.0843802449381 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.146983977725 0.15604864568 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.10540458313 0.0819641961636 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.2329268293 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 61.2550243902 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 10.3012195122 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 11.4140731707 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.06136585366 107% => OK
difficult_words: 43.0 40.7170731707 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.4329268293 74% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.9970731707 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.