The graph below shows the proportion of four different materials that were recycled from 1982 to 2010 in a particular country. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The line graph provides information about the proportion of four materials (paper and cardboard, glass containers, aluminium cans and plastics) that were recycled from 1982 to 2010 in one country.
Within the period of 28 years, the highest recycled material was paper and cardboard which accounted for about 65% in 1982 and reached to a peak of 80% in 1994 with fluctuations before decreasing gradually to 70% by 2010. On the other hand, plastic was the least recycled material which started recycling in 1990 with 1% and it was more or less constant within the period where it increased slightly to 8% by 2010.
Interestingly, recycling of aluminium cans was started in 1986 where it rose dramatically from 1% to 45% in 2010. Moreover, half of the glass containers were recycled in 1982 whereas it dropped to 40% in 1990 before increasing steadily to 60% in 2010.
Overall, there was a decline in the recycling of paper and cardboard after 1994, whereas other materials had an increase in the recycling rates over the period.
- The diagram below shows the process by which bricks are manufactured for the building industry.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 78
- The Graph below shows average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per person in the United Kindom, Sweden, Italy and Portugal between 1967 and 2007. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 73
- The diagram below shows how a solar powered water pump works Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 71
- The graph below shows the proportion of four different materials that were recycled from 1982 to 2010 in a particular country. 73
- Solar energy is becoming more and more popular as a source of household energy in many countries around the world. What are the advantages and disadvantages of solar energy?Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowl 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
moreover, whereas, more or less, on the other hand
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 : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 33.7804878049 115% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 3.97073170732 50% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 863.0 965.302439024 89% => OK
No of words: 174.0 196.424390244 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.95977011494 4.92477711251 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.63192868298 3.73543355544 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71698099575 2.65546596893 102% => OK
Unique words: 96.0 106.607317073 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.551724137931 0.547539520022 101% => OK
syllable_count: 238.5 283.868780488 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.33902439024 46% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 3.36585365854 59% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 6.0 8.94146341463 67% => 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: 29.0 22.4926829268 129% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 36.736675589 43.030603864 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.833333333 112.824112599 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.0 22.9334400587 126% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.33333333333 5.23603664747 159% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More 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: 0.245915197085 0.215688989381 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.139684426621 0.103423049105 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.081594481424 0.0843802449381 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171473463855 0.15604864568 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0906231955465 0.0819641961636 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 13.2329268293 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.96 61.2550243902 96% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.2 10.3012195122 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.08 11.4140731707 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.06136585366 107% => OK
difficult_words: 39.0 40.7170731707 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.5 11.4329268293 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.9970731707 124% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.0658536585 163% => 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.