The bar below illustrates how three countries deal with dangerous waste products.
The bar below illustrates how three countries deal with dangerous waste products.
From the overall perspective, it is seen that the main ways of dealing with waste products in the Republic of Korea, Sweden and the United Kingdom are different. Korea prefers recycling with 69 percent, whereas UK and Sweden prefer underground with 82 and 55 percent respectively. The second feature, not all the countries use the same numbers of methods. For example, only the United Kingdom use dumping in the sea and chemical treatment, and do not use recycling at all.
As for details, in the Republic of Korea second and third places are ranked by underground and incineration, in Sweden recycling and incineration are on the second and third places. And the United Kingdom with having the highest number of ways of dealing with dangerous waste has the same proportion of chemical treatment and dumping at sea, and only 2 percent with incineration.
Summarizing the facts above, it is apparent that the Republic of Korea leads with recycling among given three countries, the United Kingdom is leader with underground, and Sweden has the most balanced proportion of three ways of dealing which used.
- The charts show the distribution of money spent on music in three different years in Northern Ireland 10
- People naturally resist making changes in their lives What kind of problems can this cause What solutions can you suggest 78
- The graph below shows the contribution of three sectors agriculture manufacturing and business and financial services to the UK economy in the twentieth century 85
- People naturally resist making changes in their lives What kind of problems can this cause What solutions can you suggest 84
- The table illustrates which consequences can be caused by deforestation 61
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...es deal with dangerous waste products. From the overall perspective, it is seen...
^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ment, and do not use recycling at all. As for details, in the Republic of Korea...
^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... and only 2 percent with incineration. Summarizing the facts above, it is appar...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, second, third, whereas, as for, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 7.0 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 6.8 191% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 4.0 5.60731707317 71% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 33.7804878049 92% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 3.97073170732 176% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1001.0 965.302439024 104% => OK
No of words: 195.0 196.424390244 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13333333333 4.92477711251 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.73687570622 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74094768544 2.65546596893 103% => OK
Unique words: 97.0 106.607317073 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.497435897436 0.547539520022 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 297.0 283.868780488 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => 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: 4.0 0.482926829268 828% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.4926829268 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.5022123461 43.030603864 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.125 112.824112599 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.375 22.9334400587 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.875 5.23603664747 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 1.69756097561 177% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 3.70975609756 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 1.13902439024 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.09268292683 73% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.351641036096 0.215688989381 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.189531588068 0.103423049105 183% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.255466595451 0.0843802449381 303% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.321298343573 0.15604864568 206% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.296706895401 0.0819641961636 362% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.2329268293 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 61.2550243902 91% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.3012195122 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 11.4140731707 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.06136585366 105% => OK
difficult_words: 45.0 40.7170731707 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.4329268293 66% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.9970731707 105% => 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.