The line graph below shows the household recycling rates in three different countries between 2005 and 2015. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The line graph illustrates the rate of recycling household in the UK, France, Germany from 2005 and 2015.
Overall, it can be seen from the chart that there was a decline in the percentages of recycling household in UK while France and Germany experienced an opposite trend.
In 2005, the recycling rate of France stood at 50%, followed by a moderate decrease by 20% in the next 8 years. Nevertherless it increased slightly between 2013 and 2015, ending with 40%. Although taking advantages of domestic waste in France was better than the others at first, that was less prevelent in this country after 10 years.
The rate of recycling in the UK and Germany was 35% and 20% respectively in 2005. The former climed by 25% during the whole period, except for reaching a plataeu at 40% between 2007 and 2009 and the later went up trible over 10 years. There was an increasing number of Brishtish people reusing household waste from the second rank to the first rank.
- The chart below shows the average cost of monthly contract for four different mobile cell phones in a European country from January to September 2002 measured in euro Given is the line chart illustrating the average monthly spending on four cell phones in 92
- the graph below shows the weekly spending of an average family in a European country Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where revelant 69
- The best way to solve the world s environmental problem is to increase the cost of fuel Do you agree or disagree 67
- The diagram below shows how electricity is generated in a hydroelectric power station Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 78
- The chart below shows the average cost of monthly contract for four different mobile cell phones in a European country from January to September 2002 measured in euro 89
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 204, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d 2015, ending with 40%. Although taking advantages of domestic waste in France w...
^^
Line 7, column 351, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...from the second rank to the first rank.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, second, while, except for
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 7.0 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 33.7804878049 101% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 3.97073170732 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 823.0 965.302439024 85% => OK
No of words: 169.0 196.424390244 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.86982248521 4.92477711251 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.60555127546 3.73543355544 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52179325006 2.65546596893 95% => OK
Unique words: 102.0 106.607317073 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.603550295858 0.547539520022 110% => OK
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: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
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: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.4926829268 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.4222751404 43.030603864 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.875 112.824112599 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.125 22.9334400587 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.23603664747 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 1.69756097561 118% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
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: 0.167317333188 0.215688989381 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0862887323462 0.103423049105 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0785767255803 0.0843802449381 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126480088891 0.15604864568 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0870342440521 0.0819641961636 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.2329268293 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 75.54 61.2550243902 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 10.3012195122 77% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 11.4140731707 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.57 8.06136585366 94% => OK
difficult_words: 31.0 40.7170731707 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.9970731707 95% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => 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.