The graph below shows the amounts of waste produced by three companies over a period of 15 years.
The line graph compares three companies in terms of their waste output between the years 2000 and 2015.
It is clear that there were significant changes in the amounts of waste produced by all three companies shown on the graph. While companies A and B saw waste output fall over the 15-year period, the amount of waste produced by company C increased considerably.
In 2000, company A produced 12 tons of waste, while companies B and C produced around 8 tons and 4 tons of waste material respectively. Over the following five years, the waste output of companies B and C rose by roughly 2 tons, but the figure for company C fell by approximately 1 ton.
From 2005 to 2015, company A cut waste production by roughly 3 tons, and company B reduced its waste by about 7 tons. By contrast, company C saw an increase in waste production of roughly 4 tons over the same 10-year period. By 2015, company C’s waste output had risen to 10 tons, whereas the respective amounts of waste from companies A and B had dropped to 8 tons and only 3 tons.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-12-13 | Wardiati Yusuf | 60 | view |
| 2023-12-04 | klnhhhh01 | 70 | view |
| 2023-11-11 | Daniel3003 | 67 | view |
| 2023-11-11 | Daniel3003 | 67 | view |
| 2023-11-11 | Daniel3003 | 67 | view |
- The table below gives information about the problems faced by children in two primary schools in 2005 and 2015 67
- In some countries owning a home rather than renting one is very important for people Why might this be the case Do you think this is a positive or negative situation 78
- In their advertising businesses nowadays usually emphasize that their products are new in some way Why is this Do you think it is a positive or negative development 73
- Some people say that music is a good way of bringing people of different cultures and ages together To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion 61
- The maps below show an industrial area in the town of Norbiton and planned future development of the site Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 61
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, whereas, while
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 : 9.0 6.8 132% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 4.0 5.60731707317 71% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 33.7804878049 95% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 3.97073170732 50% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 855.0 965.302439024 89% => OK
No of words: 190.0 196.424390244 97% => OK
Chars per words: 4.5 4.92477711251 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.71268753763 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62694855788 2.65546596893 99% => OK
Unique words: 94.0 106.607317073 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.494736842105 0.547539520022 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 249.3 283.868780488 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => 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: 2.0 0.482926829268 414% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 18.7412479574 43.030603864 44% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 106.875 112.824112599 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.75 22.9334400587 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.875 5.23603664747 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 3.70975609756 27% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 1.13902439024 615% => Less 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: 0.453790967541 0.215688989381 210% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.246082711244 0.103423049105 238% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.110845550347 0.0843802449381 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.322386704366 0.15604864568 207% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.14624269604 0.0819641961636 178% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.2329268293 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 73.51 61.2550243902 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 10.3012195122 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.12 11.4140731707 80% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.85 8.06136585366 85% => OK
difficult_words: 25.0 40.7170731707 61% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.4329268293 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
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.