The given graphs illustrate a waste ratio within the family of UK in 1985 and 2002.
The given graphs illustrate a waste ratio within the family of UK in 1985 and 2002.
Overall, there is a significant growth of organic wastes and miscellaneous rubbish. By contrast, paper rubbish declined dramatically in comparison with other types of waste.
As for details, increase of organic and miscellaneous rubbish was visible in 2002 and reached 44 and 17 percent while in 1985 these ratios were seven and eight percent, respectively. Meanwhile, paper waste was following the different path and fell to the point of 16 percent in comparison of 36 percent in the beginning of the period.
As for remaining types of wastes, there were not so big changes for the given periods. Families in UK generated the same level of plastic rubbish (seven % for both period). Textile wastes followed the same pattern and the change ratio did not exceed one percent. Other wastes followed almost the same trend and had clight difference, which comprised of no more than four percent.
- The graph below shows the number of tourists visiting a particular Caribbean island between 2010 and 2017 73
- The following recommendation was made by the president and administrative staff of Grove College a private institution to the college s governing committee Recently there have been discussions about ending Grove College s century old tradition of all fema 63
- Computer games are a waste of time Do you agree or disagree 70
- The plans below show the site of an airport now and how it will look after redevelopment next year 78
- The first man to walk on the moon claimed it was a step forward for mankind However it has made little difference in most people s lives To what extent do you agree or disagree 95
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 332, Rule ID: WHICH_COMPRISED_OF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'which comprised' or 'which consisted of' or 'which was composed of'?
Suggestion: which comprised; which consisted of; which was composed of
...e same trend and had clight difference, which comprised of no more than four percent.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, so, while, as for
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 : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 1.0 5.60731707317 18% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 33.7804878049 62% => 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: 814.0 965.302439024 84% => OK
No of words: 162.0 196.424390244 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.02469135802 4.92477711251 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.56762134501 3.73543355544 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68453807991 2.65546596893 101% => OK
Unique words: 98.0 106.607317073 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.604938271605 0.547539520022 110% => OK
syllable_count: 247.5 283.868780488 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 3.36585365854 30% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.4926829268 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.0895697455 43.030603864 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.4444444444 112.824112599 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 22.9334400587 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.33333333333 5.23603664747 45% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 1.13902439024 351% => 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: 0.326165955261 0.215688989381 151% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.168284801075 0.103423049105 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.296168974791 0.0843802449381 351% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.319116365399 0.15604864568 204% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.394703259421 0.0819641961636 482% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.2329268293 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 61.2550243902 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 10.3012195122 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.54 11.4140731707 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.06136585366 103% => OK
difficult_words: 39.0 40.7170731707 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.4329268293 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.9970731707 84% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.