The graph 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, making comparisons where relevant.
The graph reveals the percentages of paper and cardboard, glass containers, aluminium cans and plastics that were recycled in one country between 1982 and 2010.
Overall, the proportion of paper and cardboard converted was the highest among the four classes of material. However, this category experienced a decline after 1994, whereas there was a continuing upward trend in the recycling of the other materials.
Paper and cardboard had a fluctuation rate that started at around 65 percent in 1982 to 80 in 1994. Then, the figure decreased steadily to the level of 70 at the end of the period, which was in 2010. On the other hand, glass containers declined initially from exactly 50 percent in the beginning to the figure of 40 in 1990. In addition, the ratings went back up to 60 percent until the end of the season.
Meanwhile, aluminum cans did not get recycled until 1986 and 1990 for plastics. Aluminum cans’ rates increased significantly from the proportion of 5 in the beginning to around 45 percent in 2010. Moreover, plastics had constant value from the amount of 2 to almost 10 percent in 2010.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The graph reveals the percentages of pap...
^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... in one country between 1982 and 2010. Overall, the proportion of paper and car...
^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the recycling of the other materials. Paper and cardboard had a fluctuation ra...
^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...0 percent until the end of the season. Meanwhile, aluminum cans did not get rec...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, moreover, so, then, whereas, while, in addition, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 7.0 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 3.0 5.60731707317 54% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 33.7804878049 121% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 3.97073170732 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 933.0 965.302439024 97% => OK
No of words: 189.0 196.424390244 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93650793651 4.92477711251 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.70779275107 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71177312876 2.65546596893 102% => OK
Unique words: 109.0 106.607317073 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.57671957672 0.547539520022 105% => OK
syllable_count: 261.0 283.868780488 92% => 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: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.4926829268 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 25.120509549 43.030603864 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 93.3 112.824112599 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9 22.9334400587 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.9 5.23603664747 151% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 1.69756097561 236% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 3.70975609756 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.09268292683 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.146223285778 0.215688989381 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0570067028054 0.103423049105 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0494048788922 0.0843802449381 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0981047541876 0.15604864568 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0532006986774 0.0819641961636 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 13.2329268293 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 70.13 61.2550243902 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 10.3012195122 77% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.37 11.4140731707 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.21 8.06136585366 102% => OK
difficult_words: 44.0 40.7170731707 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.9970731707 84% => 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.