The line chart above compares waste products in tonnes among 3 companies A, B and C from 2000 to 2005.
It can be seen from the graph that company A and B tended to produce less waste than they used to by the beginning. On the other hand, company C’s rate increased rapidly.
In 2000, company C wasted least products by 4 tonnes, the higher 8 tonnes came with company B and the last had the highest number of waste which is up to 12 tonnes. By the next 5 years, both company B and C had the same pattern going up with reaching a peak of about 10 tonnes in waste of company B while company A fell significantly to approximate 11 tonnes by 2005.
Over 10 years later, the waste of company A and B went down sharply whereas company C’s climbed without a drop. In particular, the number of products which are wasted of company A decreased from 9 tonnes by 2010 to 8 tonnes by 2015. The same decline, company B plunged from 7 tonnes in 2010 to 3 tonnes in 2015. It is clear to see that, from having the highest waste products index, company A became into the one that had second smallest amounts and the company waste least products is probably B. In contrast, company C produced the largest waste by 2015.
The line chart above compares waste products in tonnes among 3 companies A, B and C from 2000 to 2005.
It can be seen from the graph that company A and B tended to produce less waste than they used to by the beginning. On the other hand, company C’s rate increased rapidly.
In 2000, company C wasted least products by 4 tonnes, the higher 8 tonnes came with company B and the last had the highest number of waste which is up to 12 tonnes. By the next 5 years, both company B and C had the same pattern going up with reaching a peak of about 10 tonnes in waste of company B while company A fell significantly to approximate 11 tonnes by 2005.
Over 10 years later, the waste of company A and B went down sharply whereas company C’s climbed without a drop. In particular, the number of products which are wasted of company A decreased from 9 tonnes by 2010 to 8 tonnes by 2015. The same decline, company B plunged from 7 tonnes in 2010 to 3 tonnes in 2015. It is clear to see that, from having the highest waste products index, company A became into the one that had second smallest amounts and the company waste least products is probably B. In contrast, company C produced the largest waste by 2015.
- The table shows the average length of YouTube video advertisements by sector and average length of time viewers spent watching these advertisements The average length of the advertisements varied from a low of 21 8 seconds for pharmaceuticals to a high of 78
- The graph below shows changes in global food and oil prices between 2000 and 2011 73
- The line graph above illustrates variations in the average prices of food and oil on a global scale in 11 years from 2000 to 2011.Overall, there’re striking similarities in the way two values change through over one decade, which show the clearest diff 73
- The line graph compares three companies in terms of their waste output between the years 2000 and 2015 It is clear that there were significant changes in the amounts of waste produced by all three companies shown on the graph While companies A and B saw w 84
- The line chart above shows changes in the average money spent every+ month on children’s sports by parents from 2008 to 2010. The following graph compares the number of children taking part in three different physical activities, which are football, ath 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 10, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'charts'.
Suggestion: charts
The line chart above compares waste products in tonnes...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 20, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[3]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'wasted the least'.
Suggestion: wasted the least
... increased rapidly. In 2000, company C wasted least products by 4 tonnes, the higher 8 tonn...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, second, whereas, while, in contrast, in particular, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 7.0 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 33.7804878049 133% => 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: 988.0 965.302439024 102% => OK
No of words: 229.0 196.424390244 117% => OK
Chars per words: 4.31441048035 4.92477711251 88% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.89008302616 3.73543355544 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.39186534168 2.65546596893 90% => OK
Unique words: 113.0 106.607317073 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493449781659 0.547539520022 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 288.9 283.868780488 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 3.36585365854 208% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.4926829268 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.517260022 43.030603864 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.8 112.824112599 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9 22.9334400587 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.3 5.23603664747 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 1.69756097561 118% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 3.70975609756 27% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 1.13902439024 702% => 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: 0.66666848475 0.215688989381 309% => The coherence between essay topic and essay body is overfitting.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.322145362246 0.103423049105 311% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.154306097915 0.0843802449381 183% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.502412257075 0.15604864568 322% => Maybe some contents are duplicated.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.157544871772 0.0819641961636 192% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.3 13.2329268293 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 74.53 61.2550243902 122% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 10.3012195122 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 8.01 11.4140731707 70% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.14 8.06136585366 89% => OK
difficult_words: 35.0 40.7170731707 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.4329268293 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.9970731707 98% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => 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.