The chart below shows waste collection by a recycling centre from 2011 to 2015
The bar chart gives information about the amount of four types of different waste (paper, glass, tins, garden) collected by a recycling center between 2011 and 2015. Units are measured in tons.
Overall, paper waste held the largest tons collected among four distinctive categories throughout five years, except in 2013. Garden litter had the smallest gathered amount compared with three remaining types of waste - paper, glass, and garden from 2011 to 2015.
Generally, in terms of paper waste, the collection of this type was the highest among four categories (57 tons in 2011, 50 tons in 2012, 51 tons in 2014 and 70 tons in 2015, respectively). In 2015, paper waste had the largest mass collected, with 70 tons. Exceptionally in 2013, glass had the largest tons collected exactly 48 tons.
In contrast, the amount of collected garden litter had been the smallest throughout a five-year period, with 32 tons in 2011, 15 tons in 2012, 31 in 2014, and 35 in 2015. The mass of garden waste held the smallest in 2013, with 31 tons, respectively.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-11-19 | hahoaan | 78 | view |
| 2024-11-12 | Huyenlbg87 | 84 | view |
| 2024-11-10 | Giang Tran | 84 | view |
| 2024-11-10 | Giang Tran | 84 | view |
| 2024-11-10 | Giang Tran | 84 | view |
- Many people say the gap between rich and poor people is wider as rich people become richer and poor people grow poorer What problems could this situation cause and what measures can be taken to address those problems 61
- The diagrams below show the existing ground floor plan of a house and a proposed plan for some building work 42
- The chart below shows waste collection by a recycling centre from 2011 to 2015 67
- The pictures below show the process of making clothes from recycled plastic bottles Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 61
- The diagram shows how rainwater is collected for the use of drinking water in an Australian town
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 7.0 43% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 6.8 59% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 0.0 3.15609756098 0% => OK
Pronoun: 1.0 5.60731707317 18% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 33.7804878049 107% => 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: 872.0 965.302439024 90% => OK
No of words: 177.0 196.424390244 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.92655367232 4.92477711251 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.64748333727 3.73543355544 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56263538445 2.65546596893 97% => OK
Unique words: 88.0 106.607317073 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.497175141243 0.547539520022 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 225.9 283.868780488 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.482926829268 414% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 3.36585365854 208% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.4926829268 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.5450180802 43.030603864 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.8888888889 112.824112599 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6666666667 22.9334400587 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.66666666667 5.23603664747 32% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 3.70975609756 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 1.13902439024 527% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.09268292683 73% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.229279698983 0.215688989381 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.105140726606 0.103423049105 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0751374232282 0.0843802449381 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.169081535005 0.15604864568 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0570837698437 0.0819641961636 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.2329268293 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 77.57 61.2550243902 127% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 10.3012195122 70% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 11.4140731707 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.17 8.06136585366 89% => OK
difficult_words: 29.0 40.7170731707 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.9970731707 87% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.