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 waste output fall over the 15-year period, the amount of waste produced by company C increased considerably.
In 2000, company A produced 12 tonnes of waste, while companies B and C produced around 8 tonnes and 4 tonnes of waste material respectively. Over following 5 years, the waste output of companies B and C rose by around 2 tonnes, but the figure for company A fell by approximately 1 tonne.
From 2005 to 2015, company A cut waste production by roughly 3 tonnes, and company B reduced its waste by around 7 tonnes. By contrast, company C saw an increase in waste production of approximately 4 tonnes over the same 10-year period. By 2015, company C’s waste output had risen to 10 tonnes, the respective amounts of waste from companies A and B had dropped to 8 tonnes and only 3 tonnes.
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 waste output fall over the 15-year period, the amount of waste produced by company C increased considerably.
In 2000, company A produced 12 tonnes of waste, while companies B and C produced around 8 tonnes and 4 tonnes of waste material respectively. Over following 5 years, the waste output of companies B and C rose by around 2 tonnes, but the figure for company A fell by approximately 1 tonne.
From 2005 to 2015, company A cut waste production by roughly 3 tonnes, and company B reduced its waste by around 7 tonnes. By contrast, company C saw an increase in waste production of approximately 4 tonnes over the same 10-year period. By 2015, company C’s waste output had risen to 10 tonnes, the respective amounts of waste from companies A and B had dropped to 8 tonnes and only 3 tonnes.
- 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 fr 82
- The pie charts above give a percentage about water consumption in San Diego County, California and the rest of the world. It is clear from the chart that both San Diego and California consume the most water for residential demand while global population u 73
- It is clear that there’s extreme contrary in the variations of the two values over the first decade of the 21st century. While more and more money was spent on cell phone service, landline phone, on the other hand, shows a tendency of steady decrease.Th 78
- This table gives information about the forest area in some parts of the world for 15 years from 1995 to 2005.It is clear from the table that millions of hectares of land to be used to plant forest all over the regions, but it is tending to decline.In 1990 89
- The line chart above compares the amount of old peoples who were 65 and over 65 years old from 1940 to 2040 in Japan, Sweden and America.It is clear from the chart that three countries all had and will have more and more 65-and-over-year-old people. But o 78
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 : 9.0 6.8 132% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 4.0 5.60731707317 71% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 33.7804878049 98% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 3.97073170732 50% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 873.0 965.302439024 90% => OK
No of words: 188.0 196.424390244 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.64361702128 4.92477711251 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.70287850203 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75900825077 2.65546596893 104% => OK
Unique words: 92.0 106.607317073 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.489361702128 0.547539520022 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
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: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
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: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 17.348901262 43.030603864 40% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 109.125 112.824112599 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5 22.9334400587 102% => 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: 0.651252684556 0.215688989381 302% => The coherence between essay topic and essay body is overfitting.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.362426679466 0.103423049105 350% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.195892070194 0.0843802449381 232% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.492895439487 0.15604864568 316% => Maybe some contents are duplicated.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.189091566572 0.0819641961636 231% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.2329268293 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 61.2550243902 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.3012195122 96% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.93 11.4140731707 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.13 8.06136585366 88% => OK
difficult_words: 28.0 40.7170731707 69% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.4329268293 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.0658536585 90% => 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.