The chart below shows waste collection by a recycling centre from 2011 to 2015
The given chart illustrates the amount of waste that was collected by a recycling centre between 2011 and 2015. Overall, it is noticeable that the waste collected by recycling centre in all areas increased substantially. Additionally, paper was the highest throughout the period, garden waste showed a converse pattern.
In 2011, the number of paper waste collected was recorded at 57 tons of waste, after which saw a considerable decrease to 48 tons of waste in the next two years; however, paper waste collection rebounded to 51 tons in 2014 before reach a peak of 70 tons in the final year. Turning to glass waste collection, its figure began at 48 tons and witnessed a negligible decline (reaching 41 tons) in 2012. The figure then recovered to its initial number in 2013 and fluctuated from 48 to 52 tons from 2013 onward.
Concerning the two remaining types of waste, its figure started the lower period with 35 tons for tins waste and 32 tons for garden waste, which plunge remarkably to 27 tons and 15 tons correspondingly in 2012. The number of tins and garden waste observed an impressive recovery before falling again to 33 tons and 27 tons respectively in the next two years and finished with the respective figure being at 39 and 35 tons.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-12-10 | Trần Ánh Vy | 67 | view |
| 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 |
- Some groups of people have benefited from modern communication technology However some think they do not have any benefit from this To what extent do you agree or disagree 61
- Research shows that some activities are good for health and others are bad Despite knowing that millions of people engage in unhealthy activities What is the cause of this What can be done 84
- The graph below gives information on the numbers of participants for different activities at one social centre in Melbourne Australia for the period 2000 to 2020 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons w 73
- Some argue that music mainly serves as a way for individuals to reduce their stress and anxiety To what extent do you agree or disagree 78
- In spite of the advances made in argiculture many people around the world still go hungry Why is this the case What can be done about this problem 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, then
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 7.0 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 6.8 132% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 33.7804878049 112% => 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: 1037.0 965.302439024 107% => OK
No of words: 217.0 196.424390244 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.77880184332 4.92477711251 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.8380880478 3.73543355544 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72432481128 2.65546596893 103% => OK
Unique words: 114.0 106.607317073 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.52534562212 0.547539520022 96% => OK
syllable_count: 303.3 283.868780488 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.4926829268 120% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 61.8182820855 43.030603864 144% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.625 112.824112599 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.125 22.9334400587 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.625 5.23603664747 31% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 1.13902439024 527% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.09268292683 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.244420093817 0.215688989381 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.143550345648 0.103423049105 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.143539922746 0.0843802449381 170% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.208233471829 0.15604864568 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.179535212823 0.0819641961636 219% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 13.2329268293 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 60.99 61.2550243902 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.3012195122 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.74 11.4140731707 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.06136585366 104% => OK
difficult_words: 47.0 40.7170731707 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.4329268293 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.9970731707 116% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => 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.