Line graph
The line graph outlines the percentage of four different recycled materials in a particular country over a period of 28 years. All trends exhibit positive growth comparison to starting point and also albeit at different rates.
Paper and cardboard recycling rate was just 65% in 1982. The next of following year would see a swell to roughly 70%. After accelerated growth to 80% in 1994, steadily decline of almost 3% per year were apparent. Recycling paper and cardboard hits an amount of 77.5% in 1998, 75% in 2002, 72.5% in 2006 and 70% in 2010. Glass containers was opposite to this trend. Starting with recycling just 50% in 1982, Glass containers dips into 40% in 1990 and rebound starting amount in 1994. Then continuous a very stable increase with slight acceleration over the given five years. Its growth concludes at 60% in the year 2010. Although the percentage of recycled aluminum cans was much more modest in 1986 with approximately only 5%, it increased intensively and reached just shy of 50% after over 28 years. As for Plastics, recycled proportion was negligible amount, but modestly climbed to 10% in the eventual year
- The graph below give information about computer ownership as percentage of the population between 2002 and 2010 and by level of education for the years 2002 and 2010 78
- Nowadays the way many people interact with each other has changed because of technology In what ways has technology affected the types of relationships people make Has this become a positive or negative development 56
- Nowadays many charities and organizations have to publicize their activities by giving a name to a particular day such as National Children s day for encouraging treatment of children National Non smoking Day for encouraging people to give up smoking Why 67
- Some people believe that unpaid community service should be a compulsory part of high school programmes for example working for a charity improving the neighborhood or teaching sports to younger children To what extent do you agree or disagree 73
- Line graph 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 704, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...m cans was much more modest in 1986 with approximately only 5%, it increased inte...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, so, then, well, 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: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 0.0 3.15609756098 0% => OK
Pronoun: 3.0 5.60731707317 54% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 33.7804878049 110% => 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: 951.0 965.302439024 99% => OK
No of words: 192.0 196.424390244 98% => OK
Chars per words: 4.953125 4.92477711251 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.72241943641 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63374349885 2.65546596893 99% => OK
Unique words: 122.0 106.607317073 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.635416666667 0.547539520022 116% => OK
syllable_count: 262.8 283.868780488 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.33902439024 46% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.07073170732 280% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 3.36585365854 30% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 8.94146341463 134% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.4926829268 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.6426914848 43.030603864 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 79.25 112.824112599 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.0 22.9334400587 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.08333333333 5.23603664747 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 2.0 3.83414634146 52% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 3.70975609756 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.09268292683 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0605662330894 0.215688989381 28% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0232452121105 0.103423049105 22% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0770956467427 0.0843802449381 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0950580919185 0.15604864568 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0950580919185 0.0819641961636 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.9 13.2329268293 75% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 72.16 61.2550243902 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 10.3012195122 70% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.13 11.4140731707 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.97 8.06136585366 99% => OK
difficult_words: 43.0 40.7170731707 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 11.4329268293 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.9970731707 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => 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.