Recycling rate for selected materials :1982 - 2010
The figure illustrates the rate of recycling for several material between 1982 and 2010. At first glance, it is evident that aluminium cans, over the following 28 years, increased dramatically in comparing to other aspects.
To begin with, Paper and cardboard faced a palpitation from 1982, which was stood at just below 70, to 1994, which made up at 80. Nevertheless, it decreased significantly in the next 16 years to achieve at 70. Nonetheless, glass containers following the same pattern as paper and cardboard for the following 12 years, which constituted at 50 and the same as in 1982. Erratically, it uplifted significantly to finish at 60 in 2010.
In contrast, 1982 to 2010 witnessed a tremendous upsurge in the number of aluminium cans, which upright positioned at just below 10 in 1982 and finished at just above 40 in 2010. However, plastics faced a moderate progress over the whole period and it achieved at just beneath 10 in 2010.
- More and more young people from wealthy nations are doing unpaid work in poorer nations. What are the reasons and who benefits more from this: the communities or young people? 84
- some people think newspaper is the most effective way to obtain the latest information because it has more influence than other forms of media. 73
- the line graph : channel one news viewing figures. 78
- The following charts represent the weight measurements of people living in Charlestown in 1955 and 2015. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 78
- Process : Life cycle of the silkworm. 56
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 204, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[3]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'moderate progress'.
Suggestion: moderate progress
...ove 40 in 2010. However, plastics faced a moderate progress over the whole period and it achieved a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, nevertheless, nonetheless, in contrast, to begin with
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 : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 33.7804878049 107% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 3.97073170732 25% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 792.0 965.302439024 82% => OK
No of words: 160.0 196.424390244 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.95 4.92477711251 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.55655882008 3.73543355544 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93513202429 2.65546596893 111% => OK
Unique words: 94.0 106.607317073 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.5875 0.547539520022 107% => OK
syllable_count: 226.8 283.868780488 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.4926829268 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.9797241742 43.030603864 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.0 112.824112599 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 22.9334400587 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.125 5.23603664747 174% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
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: 5.0 4.09268292683 122% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.233989550602 0.215688989381 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.123825444159 0.103423049105 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.175340505684 0.0843802449381 208% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.184741586003 0.15604864568 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0994058949254 0.0819641961636 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.2329268293 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 68.1 61.2550243902 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 10.3012195122 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.43 11.4140731707 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.06136585366 100% => OK
difficult_words: 35.0 40.7170731707 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.4329268293 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.9970731707 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => 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.