The assigned pie chart compares the five different methods used to handle dangerous waste products in the Republic of Korea, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
From an overall perspective view, different countries have distinct preferences to cooper dangerous waste products, and the method used varies a lot amount them. Korea and Sweden apply the same methods to handle dangerous waste products, while the United Kingdom has wider choices.
Firstly, It is obvious that bury underground accounted for the main proportion of handling dangerous waste products in western countries, to be species, 82 per cent in the United Kingdom and 55 per cent in Sweden. While the Asia country Korea regards cycling as their first choice with a percentage of 69. Which was far more used than underground. Incineration is the last method used in Korea, merely accounting for 9 per cent.
Secondly, moving to the remained handling methods, a quarter of dangerous waste products are handled crossing cycling in Sweden, which is 5 per cent higher than incineration. However, merely 2 per cent of dangerous waste products are handled crossing incineration. In addition to that, the charts show other two rare handling methods in the United Kingdom, namely, Dumpling at sea and Chemical treatment. Both are 8 per cent.
- The pie charts below show how dangerous waste products are dealt with in three countries Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
- Consumption of meat The graph below shows the consumption of fish and some different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004 73
- The table shows the percentage of journeys made by different forms of transport in four countries The bar chart shows the results of a survey into car use Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where re 78
- The table below shows social and economic indicators for four countries in 1994 according to United Nations statistics 73
- The line graph shows estimated sales of gold in Dubai for 12 months in 2002 in millions of Dirhams 73
The assigned pie chart…
The assigned pie chart contrasts the five methods used in the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and the United Kingdom to manage hazardous waste products.
From a global perspective, various nations have distinct preferences for dealing with hazardous waste products, and their methods vary considerably. Korea and Sweden use identical methods to manage hazardous waste, whereas the United Kingdom has more options.
First, it is evident that burying hazardous refuse underground accounts for the majority of hazardous waste disposal in western countries, 82 percent in the United Kingdom and 55 percent in Sweden. Sixty-nine percent of the citizens of the Asian nation of Korea prefer cycling over all other sports. Which was utilized far more than underground. In Korea, only 9 percent of waste disposal is accomplished through incineration.
In Sweden, 25% of hazardous refuse is processed through cycling, which is 5% more than incineration. However, only 2% of hazardous waste products are processed through incineration. In addition, the charts depict two other uncommon methods of handling in the United Kingdom: dumpling at sea and chemical treatment. Both percentages are 8%.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 307, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Which” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...r first choice with a percentage of 69. Which was far more used than underground. Inc...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, while, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 7.0 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 33.7804878049 62% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 3.97073170732 151% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1096.0 965.302439024 114% => OK
No of words: 209.0 196.424390244 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24401913876 4.92477711251 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.80221413058 3.73543355544 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69477830003 2.65546596893 101% => OK
Unique words: 121.0 106.607317073 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.578947368421 0.547539520022 106% => OK
syllable_count: 324.0 283.868780488 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 8.94146341463 123% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.4926829268 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 55.877078788 43.030603864 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.6363636364 112.824112599 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 22.9334400587 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.90909090909 5.23603664747 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 3.70975609756 27% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 1.13902439024 527% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.09268292683 98% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.147472577271 0.215688989381 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0626325392389 0.103423049105 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0459765350804 0.0843802449381 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106987193992 0.15604864568 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.026348128062 0.0819641961636 32% => 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: 12.8 13.2329268293 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 61.2550243902 85% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.3012195122 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 11.4140731707 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.66 8.06136585366 107% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 40.7170731707 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.4329268293 114% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.9970731707 87% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.0658536585 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.