The bar chart shows different types of household waste in a city between 1992 and 2002.
Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The presented bar chart compares 4 distinct kinds of household garbage in terms of their reusing proportions from 1992 to 2002.
Overall, it is evident that recycle frequency generally increased in all surveyed sectors over the period. In addition, plastic was witnessed as the least recyclable type of waste among 4 categories.
Turning into detail, in 1992, in comparison to plastic trash, approximately 10% of which was renewed, the figure for paper was significantly higher, with above 20%. In the next 5 years, upward trends were observed in recycle rates of both the former and the latter, reaching about 13% and nearly 33%, respectively. However, from 1997 to 2002, while the proportion for plastic remained unchanged, that for paper grew remarkably to under 50%.
Regarding to the remaining sectors, glass and cans had the similar renewing levels of approximately 15% in 1992. Throughout the remainders of the period, recycled cans declined mildly before reaching its peak of about 25% in 2002. Meanwhile, the figure for glass expanded considerably to over a half, surpassing other categories as the most frequently reused type of waste at the end of the decade.
- Online shopping is increasing dramatically How could this trend affect our environment and the kinds of jobs required 89
- the maps below show an art gallery in Australia in 1950 and now 78
- The table below shows the percentage of the population by age groups in one town who rode a bicycle in 2011 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 89
- Scientists predict in the near future cars will be driven by computers not people Why Do you think it is a positive or negative development 89
- The bar chart shows different types of household waste in a city between 1992 and 2002 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 400, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...type of waste at the end of the decade.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, regarding, so, while, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 7.0 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 6.8 44% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 33.7804878049 118% => 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: 993.0 965.302439024 103% => OK
No of words: 189.0 196.424390244 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25396825397 4.92477711251 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.70779275107 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81894910612 2.65546596893 106% => OK
Unique words: 127.0 106.607317073 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.671957671958 0.547539520022 123% => OK
syllable_count: 289.8 283.868780488 102% => 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: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 3.36585365854 238% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.4926829268 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 24.5392102462 43.030603864 57% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 110.333333333 112.824112599 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 22.9334400587 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.11111111111 5.23603664747 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => 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: 4.0 4.09268292683 98% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.121923772027 0.215688989381 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0481286505129 0.103423049105 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0475200970434 0.0843802449381 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0812104501091 0.15604864568 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0498802749986 0.0819641961636 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.2329268293 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 61.2550243902 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.3012195122 100% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 11.4140731707 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.52 8.06136585366 118% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 40.7170731707 142% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.9970731707 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.0658536585 90% => 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.