The graph below shows the amounts of waste produced by three companies over a period of 15 years.
The line graph compares three different companies in terms of their waste produced between the years 2000 and 2015.
It can be seen obviously from the chart that overall trend is downward. The figures of both company A and B experienced a dramatic downturn while that of company C increased sharply to ending at the 1st place.
When it comes to company B, starting with around 8 tones of waste, this figure rose remarkably to a peak of approximately 10 tonnes two years later before seeing a steady decrease to just 7 tonnes in 2010. The amount of waste production continued to fall more steadily to only around 40% in comparison to that at the beginning of the period. By contrast, there was a gradual increase in the amount of waste which company C produced to about 7 tonnes in 2010 then grew more rapidly to finish with the highest figure of the graph.
Regarding to the production of waste in company A, inspite of being the 1st place overall with 12 tonnes in the first year, this figure went down gradually to be the lowest with only three quarters.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-12-13 | Wardiati Yusuf | 60 | view |
| 2023-12-04 | klnhhhh01 | 70 | view |
| 2023-11-11 | Daniel3003 | 67 | view |
| 2023-11-11 | Daniel3003 | 67 | view |
| 2023-11-11 | Daniel3003 | 67 | view |
- The graph below shows the amounts of waste produced by three companies over a period of 15 years 78
- The line graph below shows the householf recycling rates in three different countries between 2005 and 2015 73
- 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 below shows the production of paper and packaging wood pulp and sawn wood in the UK from 1980 to 2000
- The line graph below shows the production of paper and packaging wood pulp and sawn wood from 1980 to 2000 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 53, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...en obviously from the chart that overall trend is downward. The figures of both c...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, if, regarding, so, then, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 7.0 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 6.8 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 8.0 5.60731707317 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 44.0 33.7804878049 130% => 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: 870.0 965.302439024 90% => OK
No of words: 190.0 196.424390244 97% => OK
Chars per words: 4.57894736842 4.92477711251 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.71268753763 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47415449057 2.65546596893 93% => OK
Unique words: 112.0 106.607317073 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.589473684211 0.547539520022 108% => OK
syllable_count: 261.9 283.868780488 92% => 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: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => 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: 7.0 8.94146341463 78% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 22.4926829268 120% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 45.2413031444 43.030603864 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.285714286 112.824112599 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.1428571429 22.9334400587 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.28571428571 5.23603664747 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 3.70975609756 27% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 1.13902439024 439% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.09268292683 24% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.273174097366 0.215688989381 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126909425598 0.103423049105 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0913982535953 0.0843802449381 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.17230299885 0.15604864568 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0903967446292 0.0819641961636 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.2329268293 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 60.99 61.2550243902 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.3012195122 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.58 11.4140731707 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.88 8.06136585366 98% => OK
difficult_words: 35.0 40.7170731707 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.4329268293 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.9970731707 116% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => 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.