The line graph compares the recycling rate of selected materials within one country, from 1980 to 2010.
The recycling rate of the materials( glass containers, aluminium cans and plastics) showed a steady but a significant rise over the period, except for paper and cardboard, it experienced a downward trend.
In 1982, the recycling rate of the glass containers which was at 50 %, after 8 years it declined by 10% and then rose again by 10% in 1994. It continued in rising until it reaches 60 % by 2010. Aluminium cans' rate increased sharply throughout the period starting at below 10% in 1986 ending at 47% in the ending in 2010, at the same time plastics' rate increased modestly.
Among the four materials, paper and cardboard experienced a fluctuation trend. It stood at the highest peak in 1982 by 65%, increased by 5% in 1986 and then fell back to the same percentage in 1990. After 4 years it rose by almost a15%. However, if you compare all recycling rates at the end, paper and cardboard's rate was still the highest at 70%.
- The graph below shows US consumers' average annual expenditures on cell phone and residential phone services between 2001 and 2010. 61
- The graph below shows the proportion of four different materials that were recycled from 1982 to 2010 in a particular country. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 84
- The bar graph shows the type of transport preferences among young people from different countries 75
- The diagrams below show the changes that have taken place at West Park Secondary School since its construction in 1950.Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant. 61
- International tourism has brought enormous benefit to many places. At the same time, there is concern about its impact on local inhabitants and the environment.Do the disadvantages of international tourism outweigh the advantages?Give reasons for your ans 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 202, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rdboard, it experienced a downward trend In 1982, the recycling rate of the glass...
^^^
Line 6, column 200, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “After” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ll back to the same percentage in 1990. After 4 years it rose by almost a15%. However...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, still, then, except for
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 : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 7.0 5.60731707317 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 37.0 33.7804878049 110% => 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: 854.0 965.302439024 88% => OK
No of words: 181.0 196.424390244 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.7182320442 4.92477711251 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.66791821706 3.73543355544 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61714977815 2.65546596893 99% => OK
Unique words: 104.0 106.607317073 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.574585635359 0.547539520022 105% => OK
syllable_count: 239.4 283.868780488 84% => 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: 3.0 1.07073170732 280% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 3.36585365854 208% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.4926829268 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 90.8473135266 43.030603864 211% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 106.75 112.824112599 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.625 22.9334400587 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.125 5.23603664747 98% => 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 : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.09268292683 98% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.127461297761 0.215688989381 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0631436643837 0.103423049105 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0749206489464 0.0843802449381 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107735983803 0.15604864568 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0845827213999 0.0819641961636 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.2329268293 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 74.53 61.2550243902 122% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 10.3012195122 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.39 11.4140731707 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.87 8.06136585366 98% => OK
difficult_words: 36.0 40.7170731707 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.4329268293 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.9970731707 98% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => 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.