The line graph compares three companies about the term of their waste output from 2000 to 2011.
It is clear that there were remarkable changes in waste output produced by all three companies as shown in the graph. While companies A and B saw a decrease in waste production over 15 years, the amount of waste generated by company C increased significantly.
In the year 2000, company A produced 12 tonnes of waste, while companies B and C generated roughly 8 and 4 tonnes respectively. In the following five years, the waste output of companies B and C grew around 2 tonnes, but the figure for company A fell by about one tonne.
From 2005 to 2015, company A cut waste production by approximately 3 tonnes, and company B decreased about 7 tonnes. By contrast, company C rose waste output by about 4 tonnes in the same period of 10 years. By 2015, company C’s waste production had grown up to 10 tonnes, while respective the amount of waste from companies A and B had dropped to 8 tonnes and only 3 tonnes.
The line graph compares three companies about the term of their waste output from 2000 to 2011.
It is clear that there were remarkable changes in waste output produced by all three companies as shown in the graph. While companies A and B saw a decrease in waste production over 15 years, the amount of waste generated by company C increased significantly.
In the year 2000, company A produced 12 tonnes of waste, while companies B and C generated roughly 8 and 4 tonnes respectively. In the following five years, the waste output of companies B and C grew around 2 tonnes, but the figure for company A fell by about one tonne.
From 2005 to 2015, company A cut waste production by approximately 3 tonnes, and company B decreased about 7 tonnes. By contrast, company C rose waste output by about 4 tonnes in the same period of 10 years. By 2015, company C’s waste production had grown up to 10 tonnes, while respective the amount of waste from companies A and B had dropped to 8 tonnes and only 3 tonnes.
- The line chart above demonstrates the average number of people travelling long distances to work by car of public transports, bus and train in particular, in the UK from 1970 to 2030.It is clear that there were and will be significant changes in the numbe 73
- The line graph compares the average price of abarrel of oil with the food price index over aperiod of 11 years.It is clear that average global prices of both oil andfood rose considerably between 2000 and 2011.Furthermore, the trends for both commoditiesw 56
- The first line graph shows the average monthly spending on children’s sports by their parents from 2008 to 2014 while the second one presents the amount of children participating in football, athletics and swimming in the UK at the same time.It is clear 78
- The pie charts above compare figures of the population age of Yemen and Italy in the year 2000 and estimations on those statistics in 2050.It is clear from the graphs that the people of the between 15 and 59 in the two countries account for a large propor 73
- The pie charts above demonstrate the responses to a questionnaire asking 100 Customers to the Parkway hotel on how they favored its service.It is clear that within only 5 years from 2005 the hotel had showed shown greater results with more and more Visito 84
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 2.0 7.0 29% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 6.8 118% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 3.0 5.60731707317 54% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 33.7804878049 98% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 836.0 965.302439024 87% => OK
No of words: 183.0 196.424390244 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.56830601093 4.92477711251 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.67800887145 3.73543355544 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72384502512 2.65546596893 103% => OK
Unique words: 89.0 106.607317073 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.486338797814 0.547539520022 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 248.4 283.868780488 88% => 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: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.07073170732 280% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.482926829268 414% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.4926829268 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 24.3769230011 43.030603864 57% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 104.5 112.824112599 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.875 22.9334400587 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.75 5.23603664747 33% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
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: 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: 0.658369912873 0.215688989381 305% => The coherence between essay topic and essay body is overfitting.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.361546114449 0.103423049105 350% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.207340903134 0.0843802449381 246% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.497100262348 0.15604864568 319% => Maybe some contents are duplicated.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.186264929731 0.0819641961636 227% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.2329268293 87% => 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: 9.52 11.4140731707 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.71 8.06136585366 83% => OK
difficult_words: 23.0 40.7170731707 56% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => 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.