Line graph : Recycling rate for selected materials :1982 - 2010
The figure illustrates the rate of recycling for several material between 1982 and 2010. At first glance, it is evident that aluminium cans, over the following 28 years, increased dramatically in comparing to other aspects.
To begin with, Paper and cardboard faced a palpitation from 1982, which was stood at just below seventy-tenths, to 1994, which made up at 80. Nevertheless, it decreased significantly in the next 16 years to achieve at 700 in 10. Nonetheless, glass containers following the same pattern as paper and cardboard for the following 12 years, which constituted at 500 in 10 and the same as in 1982. Erratically, it uplifted significantly to finish at sixty-tenths in 2010.
In contrast, 1982 to 2010 witnessed a tremendous upsurge in the number of aluminium cans, which upright positioned at just below twenty-seconds in 1982 and finished at just above eighty-twentieths in 2010. However, plastics faced moderate progress over the whole period and it achieved at just beneath thirty-thirds in 2010.
- The maps : the plans below show the layout of a university’s sports centre now and how it will look after redevelopment. 67
- Some people prefer to spend their lives doing the same things and avoiding change. Others, however, think that change is always a good thing. 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Laptop is the first thing that they should have to help their learning process. Use specific reasons and example to support your answer. 78
- MIX : The Pie chart and bar chart shows some data which concerned on arrest number 73
- International travel is becoming cheaper, and more and more countries open their door and with more and more tourists.Do the advantages of the increased tourism outweigh its disadvantages? 61
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, third, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 2.0 7.0 29% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
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: 861.0 965.302439024 89% => OK
No of words: 163.0 196.424390244 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.28220858896 4.92477711251 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.57311423478 3.73543355544 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.30378209027 2.65546596893 124% => OK
Unique words: 97.0 106.607317073 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.59509202454 0.547539520022 109% => OK
syllable_count: 243.9 283.868780488 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.4926829268 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.5571895104 43.030603864 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.625 112.824112599 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.375 22.9334400587 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.0 5.23603664747 210% => Less 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 : 3.0 3.70975609756 81% => 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: 0.189539920966 0.215688989381 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102281609877 0.103423049105 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.14324570953 0.0843802449381 170% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.153617456619 0.15604864568 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0798982230859 0.0819641961636 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.2329268293 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 61.2550243902 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.3012195122 96% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 11.4140731707 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.06136585366 105% => OK
difficult_words: 40.0 40.7170731707 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.4329268293 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.9970731707 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.0658536585 90% => 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.