The chart shows how dangerous waste products are dealth with in three countries
The chart compares how three countries namely Republic of Korea, Sweden and the United Kingdom cope with harmful waste products. Overall, Korea favoured recycling its waste, while the majority of waste from Sweden and the UK are buried underground.
As is observed from the data, Sweden and the UK mainly put their waste in landfill sites. Fiffty percent of Swedish hazardous waste was buried, and the equivalent figure for the UK was higher, a significant 82% . It is also noticable that Sweden also employs the technique of incineration and recycling, with a quarter of its waste recycle and a fifth burned. In the meantime, the UK implemented a variety of other methods. Eight percent of its waste materials was treated chemically and another 8% was dumped at sea. A miniscule 2% was disposed of through incineration.
By contrast, recycling dominated Korean in terms of waste-treating methods. Nearly 70% of Korean waste was recycled. Korean treated only 22% of its waste by burying them, and a negligible 9% through icineration.
- The table below shows the results of survey in 2000 2005 and 2010 about one university 78
- The table gives information about the underground railwway system in six cities 84
- The chart below compares the age structure of the population of France and India in 1984 78
- The chart shows how dangerous waste products are dealth with in three countries 78
- The chart below shows the percentage of monthly household income spent on various items by two diferent groups in one European country 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 210, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...for the UK was higher, a significant 82% . It is also noticable that Sweden also e...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, so, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 7.48453608247 120% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 4.92783505155 0% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 5.05154639175 158% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.03092783505 33% => OK
Pronoun: 8.0 32.9175257732 24% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 26.3917525773 87% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.85567010309 78% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 868.0 937.175257732 93% => OK
No of words: 169.0 206.0 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13609467456 4.54256449028 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.60555127546 3.78020617076 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83792896853 2.54303337028 112% => OK
Unique words: 103.0 127.690721649 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.609467455621 0.622605031667 98% => OK
syllable_count: 268.2 290.88556701 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.41237113402 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 9.13402061856 11% => OK
Article: 4.0 0.824742268041 485% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 1.83505154639 109% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.463917525773 431% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 1.44329896907 208% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 12.6804123711 87% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 16.3608247423 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.0250418545 44.8134815571 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 78.9090909091 76.5299724578 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.3636363636 16.8248392259 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.72727272727 4.34317383033 40% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 3.0 4.29896907216 70% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 2.54639175258 39% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 7.41237113402 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 1.49484536082 468% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.94845360825 101% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.181747488247 0.216113520407 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0691641947199 0.0766984524023 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0821018380969 0.0603063233224 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134943202048 0.12726935374 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.072729407716 0.0580467560999 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.5 8.37731958763 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 70.7449484536 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 3.82989690722 230% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 7.45979381443 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.94 8.71597938144 137% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.61 7.59969072165 126% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 41.2886597938 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 8.62886597938 127% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 8.54432989691 94% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 8.15463917526 135% => 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.