The chart below shows waste collection by a recycling centre from 2011 to 2015.
The bar chart shows the amount of waste collected into four categories such as paper, glass, tins and garden waste by an unidentified recycling center from 2011 to 2015. Looking from an overall perspective, it is readily apparent that most of the waste collected increased significantly. Paper recycling had been very popular for the five years since 2011, while garden waste showed a converse pattern.
In 2011, recyclable waste topped the list with paper at 57 tons, well ahead of glass, cans and yard waste at 48, 35 and 32 tons respectively. In the following years, paper volumes declined, reaching a low of 40 tons in 2013 before recovering rapidly in 2015 to 70 tons.
Recycling of glass and tin cans has been steadily declining over the last four years, with 41 and 27 tons (2012), 48 and 34 tons (2013), 46 and 33 tons (2014) and 52 and 39 tons (2015). For yard waste, the figure dropped sharply in 2012; more than that, it was halved to 15 tons at its lowest point. By 2015, the figure had increased and fluctuated around 35 tons.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-11-19 | hahoaan | 78 | view |
| 2024-11-12 | Huyenlbg87 | 84 | view |
| 2024-11-10 | Giang Tran | 84 | view |
| 2024-11-10 | Giang Tran | 84 | view |
| 2024-11-10 | Giang Tran | 84 | view |
- The chart below shows waste collection by a recycling centre from 2011 to 2015 78
- Some groups of people have benefited from modern communication technology However some think they do not have any benefit from this To what extent do you agree or disagree 61
- The chart below shows waste collection by a recycling centre from 2011 to 2015 78
- The flow chart below shows the procedure to get a driving license in US Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
- The charts below show the changes in ownership of electrical appliances and amount of time doing housework and households in one country between 1920 and 2019 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons wher 89
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rden waste showed a converse pattern. In 2011, recyclable waste topped the lis...
^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...recovering rapidly in 2015 to 70 tons. Recycling of glass and tin cans has been...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, look, well, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 7.0 57% => 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: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 33.7804878049 80% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 3.97073170732 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 851.0 965.302439024 88% => OK
No of words: 185.0 196.424390244 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.6 4.92477711251 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.68801715136 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44220260067 2.65546596893 92% => OK
Unique words: 119.0 106.607317073 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.643243243243 0.547539520022 117% => OK
syllable_count: 232.2 283.868780488 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.334479147 43.030603864 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.375 112.824112599 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.125 22.9334400587 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.75 5.23603664747 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 1.69756097561 118% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 1.13902439024 439% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.09268292683 24% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.300304460617 0.215688989381 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.134361686007 0.103423049105 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.127108159668 0.0843802449381 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.205210669281 0.15604864568 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.158029005505 0.0819641961636 193% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.2329268293 89% => 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: 9.7 11.4140731707 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.51 8.06136585366 93% => OK
difficult_words: 32.0 40.7170731707 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => 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.