The pie charts below show how dangerous waste products are dealt with in three countries. The pie charts below show how dangerous waste products are dealt with in three countries.
Write a report for a university, lecturer describing the information shown below. Write a report for a university, lecturer describing the information shown below.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make
comparisons where relevant.
The pie charts illustrate how three particular countries dispose of hazardous waste.
Overall, Sweden and the United Kingdom contribute the most dangerous waste products while Korea takes more measures to recycle.
It can be seen that while nearly 45% of dangerous rubbish is recycled in Sweden more than in Korea, the UK does not use recycling as an option to deal with waste. The most significant way to deal with waste products in the UK is destroying the waste in the underground, at 82%. The proportion of underground in Korea is nearly 35% less than the proportion of the ones in Sweden.
Destroying waste by fire in the UK accounted for an insignificant percentage, at 2%. The proportion of incineration in Korea and Sweden, at 9% and 20% respectively. Only in the UK, chemical treatment and dumping at sea solve garbage and make up the same amount, at 8 %.
- The chart below shows the number of jobs in tourism arelated industries in one UL city between 1089 and 2009
- The diagram below shows how to recycle organic waste to produce fertilizer compost 61
- It is difficult for people inm the cities to get enough physical exercises What are the reasons What are the solutions 84
- Some people think that it is more beneficial to take part in sports which are played in teams like football while other people think that taking part in individual sports is bteer like tennis or swimming Discuss both views and give your opinion 61
- The maps below show the centre of a small town called Islip as it is now and plans for its development 78
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 6.5 out of 9
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 8 10
No. of Words: 149 200
No. of Characters: 690 1000
No. of Different Words: 85 100
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.494 4.0
Average Word Length: 4.631 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.848 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 44 60
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 34 50
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 27 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 22 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.625 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.957 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.25 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.446 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.446 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.072 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 4