The graph below shows the proportion of four different materials that were recycled from 1982 to 2010 in a particular country.
The provided line graph represents an overview of the amount of four various materials (Paper and cardboard, Glass container, Aluminium cans and Plastics), which recycled in a particular country from 1982 to 2010.
Overall, it can be clearly seen that recycling of Paper and cardboard and Glass containers increased after fluctuated; whereas, Aluminium cans ascending gradually over the periods.
Almost 65% Papers and cardboard material recycled in 1982 and it increased by 5% after the four years. Surprisingly, it rose significantly after declined and peaked at 80% in 1994. After 1994, it descending gradually and reached at 70% in 2010. Glass containers recycled 50% in the beginning period, but it dropped by 10% after eight years. From 1990 to 2010, it was increased steadily and touched at 60% in 2010.
However, Aluminium cans and plastics could not recycled in the beginning four years. In 1986, Aluminium cans recycled nearly 5%. The recycling rat of it waclimbed up step by step from 1986 to 2010; it was approximately 45% in the end of period. Furthermore, the recycling rate of Plastic was least of position compared to the others three materials and it increased literally and reached at nearly 10% in 2010.
- Some people believe that it is best to accept a bad situation such as an unsatisfactory job or shortage of money Others argue that it is better to try and improve such situations Discuss both these views and give your own opinion 64
- Nowadays children are consuming too many sugar-based drinks. What are the reasons and the solutions for this situation? 78
- The charts below show the average percentages in typical meals of three types of nutrients, all of which may be unhealthy if eaten too much.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features,and make comparisons where relevant. 61
- You should spend about 20 minutes on this task Write about the following topic The charts below show the proportions of British students at one university in England who were able to speak other languages in addition to English in 2000 and 2010 Summarise 73
- The bar chart below shows the top ten countries for the production and consumption of electricity in 2014.Summaries the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. Write at least 150 words. 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 48, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'recycle'
Suggestion: recycle
..., Aluminium cans and plastics could not recycled in the beginning four years. In 1986, A...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, however, if, whereas
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 7.0 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 1.00243902439 200% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 6.8 191% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 10.0 5.60731707317 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 33.7804878049 112% => 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: 1027.0 965.302439024 106% => OK
No of words: 200.0 196.424390244 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.135 4.92477711251 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.76060309309 3.73543355544 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81458700345 2.65546596893 106% => OK
Unique words: 106.0 106.607317073 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.53 0.547539520022 97% => OK
syllable_count: 283.5 283.868780488 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => 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: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 8.94146341463 123% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.4926829268 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 50.7634279756 43.030603864 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.3636363636 112.824112599 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1818181818 22.9334400587 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.45454545455 5.23603664747 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 3.70975609756 162% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.09268292683 122% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.245945479371 0.215688989381 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101895646056 0.103423049105 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0778546698508 0.0843802449381 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161369574106 0.15604864568 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0905025347919 0.0819641961636 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.2329268293 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 70.13 61.2550243902 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 10.3012195122 77% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 11.4140731707 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.06136585366 102% => OK
difficult_words: 47.0 40.7170731707 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.9970731707 84% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => 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.