The graph below shows the proportion of four different material that were recycled from 1982 to 2010 in a particular country .
Summaries the information by selecting and reporting the main features , and make comparison where relevant .
The chart shows the percentages of paper and cardboard, glass containers, aluminium cans and plastics that were recycled in one country between 1982 and 2010.
In 1982, about 65% of paper and cardboard was recycled. This figure fluctuated before rising steeply to reach a peak of 80% in 1994. From then on, however, it decreased steadily to a level of 70% in 2010.
In 1982, half of all glass containers were recycled; after dipping to a low of 40% in 1990, the glass recycling rate gradually increased to 60% by 2010. Aluminium cans were first recycled in 1986, starting at about 5%, but this figure climbed rapidly over 25 years and by 2010 it had reached 45%. Recycling of plastics, on the other hand, was not introduced until 1990 and, although the growth in this category was also constant, it was very slow, rising from about 2% to around 8% over the period.
Overall, the proportion of paper and cardboard that was recycled was the highest of the four classes of material, but this category experienced a decline after 1994, whereas there was a continuing upward trend in the recycling of the other materials.
- The line graph below shows the population size, birth rate and the death rate ofEngland and Wales from 1700 to 2000. Summarise the information by selecting andreporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant. 73
- The graph below shows the proportion of four different material that were recycled from 1982 to 2010 in a particular country . Summaries the information by selecting and reporting the main features , and make comparison where relevant . 84
- The charts provide information about students in 2007 who were happy with different facilities at a university of UK Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
- The graph below shows the average retirement age of males and females in six countries in 2003 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 80
- Children ore focing more pressures nowadays from academic, social,and commercial, perspectives. Whal ore the causes of these pressuresand what measures should be taken to reduce these pressures? 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, so, then, whereas, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 7.0 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 6.8 132% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 9.0 5.60731707317 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 43.0 33.7804878049 127% => 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: 932.0 965.302439024 97% => OK
No of words: 194.0 196.424390244 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.80412371134 4.92477711251 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.73207559907 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52728757463 2.65546596893 95% => OK
Unique words: 114.0 106.607317073 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.587628865979 0.547539520022 107% => OK
syllable_count: 260.1 283.868780488 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.482926829268 414% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 3.36585365854 178% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.4926829268 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.5958921629 43.030603864 148% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.5 112.824112599 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.25 22.9334400587 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.875 5.23603664747 150% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
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: 0.158811724172 0.215688989381 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.072741816509 0.103423049105 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0487467476825 0.0843802449381 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107151622446 0.15604864568 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0433449703233 0.0819641961636 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.2329268293 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 72.5 61.2550243902 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 10.3012195122 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.86 11.4140731707 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.0 8.06136585366 99% => OK
difficult_words: 39.0 40.7170731707 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.4329268293 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.9970731707 105% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => 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.