Recycling Rate for selected materials: 1982-2010
The graph depicts the percentage of four different materials recycled ( paper
and cardboard, glass containers, aluminium cans and plastics) over 28 years
from 1982 to 2010.
Overall, there was an upward trend in recycling paper and cardboard, compared
to other materials, this rate was higher. Glass containers and aluminium cans
had a rise throughout the period, whilst plastics was the least recycled
between 1982 and 2010.
It is noticeable that 60% of paper and cardboard was recycled in 1982. This
figure increased slightly to 70% in the year 1986 and dropped at 65%
throughout the year 1990. Afterwards, paper and cardboard had a dramatic
increase to 80% 4 years after, but suddenly had a decline and hit to 70% in the
year 2010. This rate was higher, compared to other materials under 70%.
As we can see in the chart, glass containers were 50% in the beginning year ( in
1982), then significantly decreased to 40% in 1990. In addition, the recycling of
glass containers shown an upturn and hit 60% for 20 years.
It is interesting to note that aluminium cans recycled began in 1986. Although
there were 5% of them were recycled, the rate started to rose enormously and
picked up to 45% in 2010. Plastic recycling began in 1990 and remained the
least recycled material ( less than 10%) throughout the given period.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 70, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...age of four different materials recycled paper and cardboard, glass containers, ...
^^
Line 13, column 76, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ontainers were 50% in the beginning year in 1982, then significantly decreased t...
^^
Line 19, column 24, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nd remained the least recycled material less than 10% throughout the given perio...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, then, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 7.0 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 6.8 191% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 9.0 5.60731707317 161% => Less pronouns wanted
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: 1121.0 965.302439024 116% => OK
No of words: 224.0 196.424390244 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00446428571 4.92477711251 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86867284054 3.73543355544 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64535581086 2.65546596893 100% => OK
Unique words: 119.0 106.607317073 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.53125 0.547539520022 97% => OK
syllable_count: 297.9 283.868780488 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 1.53170731707 326% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => 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: 12.0 8.94146341463 134% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.4926829268 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.7713183023 43.030603864 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.4166666667 112.824112599 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6666666667 22.9334400587 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.16666666667 5.23603664747 41% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 18.0 3.83414634146 469% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 1.69756097561 177% => 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: 9.0 4.09268292683 220% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.302392742367 0.215688989381 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.114680168486 0.103423049105 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0599588775387 0.0843802449381 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0923222292386 0.15604864568 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0808456573584 0.0819641961636 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.2329268293 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 78.59 61.2550243902 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.8 10.3012195122 66% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 11.4140731707 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.35 8.06136585366 91% => OK
difficult_words: 40.0 40.7170731707 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.4329268293 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.9970731707 84% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
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.