The graph below shows waste recycling rates in the U.S. from 1960 to 2011
The presented line graph demonstrates the information about how the rates related to the waste recycling have been changed in the US over the period of 51 years, starting from 1960 to 2011. Units are measured in both percentage and million tons.
The most striking feature to be observed is that, there was a significant upward trend in terms of both amount of the garbage and the proportion of recycling. Besides, the total amount of waste recovered at the beginning of the survey was comparatively less than that of waste in 2011.
Looking the data in more detail, it is clear that in 1960, total waste recovery quantity was lowest point, with standing at 5.6 million tons. By 1985, this rate had steadily climbed to a point of 16.7 million tons before experiencing a tremendous increase to a high of 86.9m in 2011.
With regarding the recycling rate in the US, this figure also followed quite same pattern over the frame period. In 1960, recycling rate stood at 6.4% which was witnessed with a slight growth of 4.7% until 1985. In next 30 years, this progress continued to reach peak point of 34.7% at the end of survey.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-09-07 | dorae | 67 | view |
| 2024-09-06 | bassmodulators123 | 67 | view |
| 2024-08-31 | bassmodulators123 | 78 | view |
| 2024-08-30 | phadode | 73 | view |
| 2024-08-26 | Ahmad_off | 84 | view |
- The chart below shows the places visited by different people living in Canada. 84
- The table below shows the monthly expenditure of an average Australian family in 1991 and 2001. 78
- The charts below show the percentage of water used for different purposes in six areas of the world. 84
- The chart below shows the price in Euros of 800 grams of four types of bread in one European country from 2001 to 2006 75
- The graph below shows the number of university graduates in Canada from 1992 to 2007.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant. 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 233, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a million'.
Suggestion: a million
...its are measured in both percentage and million tons. The most striking feature to...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 90, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'was the lowest'.
Suggestion: was the lowest
... in 1960, total waste recovery quantity was lowest point, with standing at 5.6 million ton...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, if, look, regarding, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 7.0 129% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 6.8 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 9.0 5.60731707317 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 43.0 33.7804878049 127% => 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: 944.0 965.302439024 98% => OK
No of words: 198.0 196.424390244 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.76767676768 4.92477711251 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.75116612262 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48055903893 2.65546596893 93% => OK
Unique words: 121.0 106.607317073 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.611111111111 0.547539520022 112% => OK
syllable_count: 269.1 283.868780488 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 1.53170731707 261% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.4926829268 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.3663874837 43.030603864 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.888888889 112.824112599 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 22.9334400587 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.22222222222 5.23603664747 81% => 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 : 3.0 1.13902439024 263% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.278039313146 0.215688989381 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102055362389 0.103423049105 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.10233251236 0.0843802449381 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.162409576007 0.15604864568 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0797074094832 0.0819641961636 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 13.2329268293 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 66.07 61.2550243902 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 10.3012195122 92% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.39 11.4140731707 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.16 8.06136585366 101% => OK
difficult_words: 43.0 40.7170731707 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.9970731707 98% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => 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.