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, the amount of paper and cardboard recycling palpitated slightly 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. However, glass containers following the same pattern as paper and cardboard for the first 12 years, which constituted at 50, erratically, it uplifted significantly to finish at 60 by the end of the period shown.
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. Nonetheless, the total of recycling for plastics faced moderate progress over the whole period and it achieved at just beneath 10 in 2010.
- Successful sport professionals can earn a great deal more money than people in other important professions. Some people think this is fully justified while others think it is unfair.Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. 73
- Many museums and historical sites are mainly visited by tourists but not local people.Why is this the case and what can be done to attract more local people to visit these places? 67
- Some people think that it is good for a country's culture to import foreign movies and TV programmes. Others think that it is better to produce these locally. Discuss both views and give your opinion. 73
- Some people say that the only reason for learning a foreign language is in order to travel to or work in a foreign country. Others say that these are not the only reasons why someone should learn a foreign language.Discuss both these views and give your o 73
- The maps show the changes of Springfield primary school in 2005 – 2015. 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 15, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ring to other aspects. To begin with, the amount of paper and cardboard recycl...
^^
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 : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 33.7804878049 112% => 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: 830.0 965.302439024 86% => OK
No of words: 166.0 196.424390244 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0 4.92477711251 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.58944267634 3.73543355544 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8870446575 2.65546596893 109% => OK
Unique words: 99.0 106.607317073 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.596385542169 0.547539520022 109% => OK
syllable_count: 237.6 283.868780488 84% => 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: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => 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: 7.0 8.94146341463 78% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.3349554903 43.030603864 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.571428571 112.824112599 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7142857143 22.9334400587 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.4285714286 5.23603664747 199% => 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: 4.0 4.09268292683 98% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.250808683573 0.215688989381 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.144605532944 0.103423049105 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.184592672231 0.0843802449381 219% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.201432509934 0.15604864568 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.103944639122 0.0819641961636 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.2329268293 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 61.2550243902 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.3012195122 96% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 11.4140731707 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.06136585366 102% => OK
difficult_words: 36.0 40.7170731707 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.4329268293 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.