The graph below shows the proportion of four different materials that were recycled from 1982 to 2010 in a particular country.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
Write at least 150 words.
The given chart illustrates the percentage of recycled materials in between the period of 1982 to 2010.this comparison includes paper, aluminum and plastic and glass
From the information given on the years between 1982 to 2010,It has been clearly demonstrate that paper and cardboard has relatively high percentage of getting recycled than rest of products
The uneven chart of paper shows that from approximately 65% in 1982, it's recycling inclined to 70 percent in 1986 and then again went back to 65 percent in 1990.A sudden surge in 1994 leads the recycling to whopping 80 percent and then it's recycling gradually drop to 70% in 2010 making it the most recycled product from the rest
Turning to the remaining figures, recycling percentage of glass was 50% in 1982 which means that half of the glass recycled in that period.If we go further,the chart inform that the recycling rate was gradually declined to 40% in 1990 and then boost up to remarkable 60% in 2010 with increment of about 2% from 2000 to 2010 every couple of year.
The recycling of aluminum cans have been surge up the most with the approximately 900% increasment in it's recycling rate
Until 1985, there was not any proper way to recycle it but from 5% in 1986 there was a constant increment of 2.5% each year until 2002 and then there was a whopping 10% increase in recycling rate every quadraple year
The least recycled product among four in this specific period of time is plastic.the data shows only 3% of plastic was recycled in 1990 and it didn't make a significant development and next 20 years.The total recycled plastic in 2010 was about 8.5% which shows that recycling of plastic was not successful in this time period of 20 years with only 5.5% add up to the recycling rate of plastic
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 82, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'demonstrated'.
Suggestion: demonstrated
...etween 1982 to 2010,It has been clearly demonstrate that paper and cardboard has relatively...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 191, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...f getting recycled than rest of products The uneven chart of paper shows that fro...
^^^
Line 3, column 162, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: A
...n again went back to 65 percent in 1990.A sudden surge in 1994 leads the recyclin...
^
Line 3, column 330, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the most recycled product from the rest Turning to the remaining figures, recycl...
^^^
Line 4, column 140, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: If
...lf of the glass recycled in that period.If we go further,the chart inform that the...
^^
Line 4, column 156, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , the
...recycled in that period.If we go further,the chart inform that the recycling rate wa...
^^^^
Line 7, column 56, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...led product among four in this specific period of time is plastic.the data shows only 3% of pl...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 144, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... of plastic was recycled in 1990 and it didnt make a significant development and next...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 199, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...gnificant development and next 20 years.The total recycled plastic in 2010 was abou...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, so, then
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 7.0 157% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 6.8 147% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 3.15609756098 253% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 17.0 5.60731707317 303% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 64.0 33.7804878049 189% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 3.97073170732 126% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1471.0 965.302439024 152% => OK
No of words: 308.0 196.424390244 157% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.77597402597 4.92477711251 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 3.73543355544 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57330337991 2.65546596893 97% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 106.607317073 136% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.470779220779 0.547539520022 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 414.0 283.868780488 146% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.33902439024 184% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 3.36585365854 59% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 2.0 8.94146341463 22% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 154.0 22.4926829268 685% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 153.0 43.030603864 356% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 735.5 112.824112599 652% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 154.0 22.9334400587 672% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 8.5 5.23603664747 162% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 3.83414634146 183% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 9.0 1.69756097561 530% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 3.70975609756 27% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
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: 0.180154328559 0.215688989381 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.149817702011 0.103423049105 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0372123753321 0.0843802449381 44% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0994775995476 0.15604864568 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0329069701776 0.0819641961636 40% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 78.1 13.2329268293 590% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -59.45 61.2550243902 -97% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 0.0 6.51609756098 0% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 59.8 10.3012195122 581% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 11.63 11.4140731707 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 13.63 8.06136585366 169% => OK
difficult_words: 46.0 40.7170731707 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 57.0 11.4329268293 499% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 63.6 10.9970731707 578% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 60.0 11.0658536585 542% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.