The bar chart shows different methods of waste disposal in four cities: Toronto, Madrid, Kuala Lumpur and Amman.
A glimpse at the bar chart given unfolds the ways of disposing garbage in four cities, namely, Toronto, Madrid, Kuala Lumpur, and Amman. Overall, different cities have their preferences on management of waste.
It is clearly established that landfilling is the dominant waste disposal method in Toronto, with over staggering three quarters of waste being dumped on landfill sites, which is almost two times and three times as many waste disposed in Madrid and Kuala Lumpur’s sites respectively. In stark contrast, Kuala Lumpur uses incineration instead as their key method to manage over a half of their waste. Interestingly, landfilling and incinerating are comparably common in Madrid and Amman for handling 70% to 80% of rubbish.
Evidently, the less applied waste management methods among the four cities are recycling and compositing. While about only 20% of waste are recycled in Madrid and Kuala Lumpur, Toronto and Amman recycle a mere 10% of waste. Lastly, compositing constitutes less than negligible one tenth of waste disposal in all cities listed.
All in all, Toronto handles a majority of waste by landfill whereas Kuala Lumpur incinerates a considerable portion of waste. Madrid and Amman, meanwhile, dispose most of their garbage by both landfill and incineration.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-08-22 | Hira Shaheen | 61 | view |
| 2019-08-22 | Hira Shaheen | 61 | view |
- You took your family to a nearby restaurant. You were disappointed with the meal and wish to complain to the manager.Write a letter to the manager of the restaurant. In your letter, » explain why you were at the restaurant » describe the problems » 81
- A healthy diet is more important for keeping fit than exercise To what extent do you agree with this statement Give example or personal experiences 89
- The chart below shows how much money is spent in the budget on different sectors by the UAE government in 2000. 78
- The bar graph below shows the numbers of male and female research students studying six subjects at a US university in 2011.Summarize the information by selecting and report in the main feature, and make comparisons where relevant. 84
- The table shows the worldwide market share of mobile phone manufacturers in the years 2005 and 2006. 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, lastly, whereas, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 7.0 100% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 6.8 147% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 33.7804878049 92% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 3.97073170732 126% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1094.0 965.302439024 113% => OK
No of words: 202.0 196.424390244 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41584158416 4.92477711251 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.76996954942 3.73543355544 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88589659838 2.65546596893 109% => OK
Unique words: 121.0 106.607317073 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.59900990099 0.547539520022 109% => OK
syllable_count: 344.7 283.868780488 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.45097560976 117% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.33902439024 46% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 3.36585365854 59% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.4926829268 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.1911024985 43.030603864 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.4 112.824112599 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2 22.9334400587 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.6 5.23603664747 50% => 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: 2.0 4.09268292683 49% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.474863191448 0.215688989381 220% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.174768295097 0.103423049105 169% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.120722738753 0.0843802449381 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.296930833027 0.15604864568 190% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.079427358721 0.0819641961636 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.2329268293 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 61.2550243902 70% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.3012195122 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 11.4140731707 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.79 8.06136585366 121% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 40.7170731707 162% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.4329268293 127% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.9970731707 91% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.0658536585 136% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.