The chart below shows the waste disposal in 1 European country in four years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008
The bar chart illustrates the average amount of waste disposed of annually in a European country from 2005 to 2008 in terms of landfill, burning and dumping at sea.
Overall, it is clear that the average amount of waste disposal using landfill declined over the period. In contrast, there was an increase in the amount of waste incinerated.
In 2005, landfill accounted for the disposal of 1800 million tonnes of waste. This figure fell to 1200 million tonnes in the following year, and continued to decline until 2008, when the amount was just one-third of the figure for 2005. Although most waste went into landfill until 2007, the amount of rubbish disposed of by burning exceeded the figure for landfill in 2008.
While only 500 million tonnes of waste was burned in 2005, this amount rose steadily to reach a peak of 900 million tonnes at the end of the period. However, these years saw fluctuations in the amount of rubbish dumped at sea. From a figure of 500 million tonnes in 2005, there was an increase to over 600 million tonnes in the next year, followed by a steady decline to about 550 million tonnes in 2008.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-13 | Nhung yen | 78 | view |
| 2020-03-13 | emmaphamngoc | 73 | view |
| 2018-01-13 | o0olynero0o | 77 | view |
| 2018-01-12 | Baonhi | 57 | view |
- the table below shows the amount of waste production millions of tons in six different countries over the twenty year period Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 70
- The chart shows the average daily minimum and maximum levels of air pollutants in 4 cities 2000. 67
- The chart below shows the waste disposal in 1 European country in four years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 78
- The charts below compare five different countries showing the electricity used measured in megawatts or mw in a typical hospital during one week and also the number of emergency medical calls made by local residents during the same week The last chart sho 74
- The graph below shows consumers average annual expenditure on cell phone national and international fixed line and services in America between 2001 and 2010 The graph below shows consumers average annual expenditure on cell phone national and internationa 63
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, third, while, in contrast
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 : 2.0 6.8 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 33.7804878049 136% => 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: 934.0 965.302439024 97% => OK
No of words: 198.0 196.424390244 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.71717171717 4.92477711251 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.75116612262 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.32318840538 2.65546596893 87% => OK
Unique words: 94.0 106.607317073 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.474747474747 0.547539520022 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 271.8 283.868780488 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 1.53170731707 261% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 2.0 4.33902439024 46% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.07073170732 280% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.4926829268 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.5561797704 43.030603864 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.777777778 112.824112599 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 22.9334400587 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.77777777778 5.23603664747 72% => OK
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: 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: 0.224001467232 0.215688989381 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.107800436332 0.103423049105 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0708863979525 0.0843802449381 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.162765916951 0.15604864568 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0801266520801 0.0819641961636 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.2329268293 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 66.07 61.2550243902 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 10.3012195122 92% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.1 11.4140731707 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.28 8.06136585366 90% => OK
difficult_words: 32.0 40.7170731707 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.4329268293 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.9970731707 98% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => 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.