The chart below shows waste collection by a recycling centre from 2011 to 2015.
The bar chart compares the figures for waste collection in four categories at a recycling center between 2011 and 2015. Overall, it is noticeable that waste collected for all areas increased, in particular for paper waste which was generally highest throughout the period. In contrast, garden and tin waste were less commonly recycled.
There was a consistent decrease for the amount of paper waste (from 57 tons to 40 tons) from 2011 to 2013, however, the data increased dramatically for the rest of the period and ended at 70 tons. Similarly, in 2011, the figure for glass waste was 48 tons and witnessed a negligible decrease (reaching 41 tons) in 2012. The figure then recovered to its initial number, overtaking the statistic for paper waste in 2013, and fluctuated around 50 tons for the rest of the time surveyed.
The number for tin waste was erratic around 35 tons for the 5-year-period and reached 39 tons in 2015. Garden waste was slightly lower, dropping from 32 tons to 15 tons in 2012, before rebounding to 31 tons the next year and finishing at 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 table below shows information about age average income per person and population below poverty line in three states in the USA Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 67
- The diagram details the process of producing olive oil Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 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 56
- The maps below show a science park in 2008 and the same park today Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 67
- The picture illustrates the disparity of a park named Grange Park between 1920 and today 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 210, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...r all areas increased, in particular for paper waste which was generally highest ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, similarly, then, in contrast, in particular
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 7.0 100% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 3.0 5.60731707317 54% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 33.7804878049 80% => 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: 884.0 965.302439024 92% => OK
No of words: 185.0 196.424390244 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.77837837838 4.92477711251 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.68801715136 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5900636113 2.65546596893 98% => OK
Unique words: 103.0 106.607317073 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.556756756757 0.547539520022 102% => OK
syllable_count: 252.0 283.868780488 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => 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: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.8813938498 43.030603864 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.5 112.824112599 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.125 22.9334400587 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5 5.23603664747 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 3.70975609756 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 1.13902439024 702% => 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: 0.202024638333 0.215688989381 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111572673132 0.103423049105 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0871266210761 0.0843802449381 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.157051360834 0.15604864568 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0821603275165 0.0819641961636 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.2329268293 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 61.2550243902 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.3012195122 96% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.74 11.4140731707 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.7 8.06136585366 108% => OK
difficult_words: 46.0 40.7170731707 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.