The graph below shows waste recycling rates in the U.S. from 1960 to 2011.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
<span id="docs-internal-guid-c6b712bb-7fff-feb8-8f8a-db709777f982"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline;">The given line graph illustrates information from the research into how many million tons of garbage were recovered and how much that amount of waste accounted for the total weight of trash that the Americans produced over a 51-year period between 1960 and 2011.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline;">Overall, according to the data, the weight of trash we recycled pumped up significantly. Additionally, we were able to recycle a larger percentage of rubbish over the period.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline;">To be specific, during the former half period, the amount of trash recycled saw an upward trend from nearly 6 million tons in 1960 to just under 17 million tons in 1985. Exchanging into percentage of total waste produced, the recovered garbage in 1985 accounted for more than 6% but in 1985 the proportion was rose to 10.1%.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline;">Turning to the latter half period, the weight quickly reached its peak at nearly 90 million tons in 2011 due to a gradual upsurge from the initial of this second-half period. Meanwhile, this figure accounted for 34,7% in the total of trash littered, more than tripled comparing to the percentage calculated in 1985. </span></p><div><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline;"><br></span></div></span>
- The graph below shows waste recycling rates in the U S from 1960 to 2011 Unit is measured in million tons and the percent recycling on total trash produced Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where r 89
- Many people believe that social networking sites such as Facebook have had a huge negative impact on both individuals and society To what extent do you agree 84
- Men and women are capable of doing all jobs equally well To what extent do you agree or disagree 67
- The graph below gives information about international tourist arrivals in five countries: USA, France, Egypt, Malaysia, BrazilSummarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 11
- The chart below gives information about the most common sports played in New Zealand in 2002.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 61
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, second, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 7.0 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 6.8 44% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 7.0 5.60731707317 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 36.0 33.7804878049 107% => 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: 2352.0 965.302439024 244% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 269.0 196.424390244 137% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 8.74349442379 4.92477711251 178% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0498419064 3.73543355544 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 10.9635053446 2.65546596893 413% => Word_Length_SD is high.
Unique words: 125.0 106.607317073 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.46468401487 0.547539520022 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 572.4 283.868780488 202% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.1 1.45097560976 145% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 4.0 8.94146341463 45% => 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: 67.0 22.4926829268 298% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 234.095066159 43.030603864 544% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 588.0 112.824112599 521% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 67.25 22.9334400587 293% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 5.5 5.23603664747 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 1.0 3.83414634146 26% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 3.70975609756 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 1.13902439024 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.09268292683 49% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0354659540454 0.215688989381 16% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0276638896212 0.103423049105 27% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0165422970887 0.0843802449381 20% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0354659540454 0.15604864568 23% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0819641961636 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 53.4 13.2329268293 404% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -38.83 61.2550243902 -63% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 23.7 6.51609756098 364% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 35.3 10.3012195122 343% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 34.6 11.4140731707 303% => Coleman_liau_index is high.
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.25 8.06136585366 127% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 40.7170731707 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 38.0 11.4329268293 332% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 28.8 10.9970731707 262% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 35.0 11.0658536585 316% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum two paragraphs wanted.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 11.2359550562 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.