The given graph illustrates how much waste is created by three companies over the course of 15 years beginning at 2000.
Looking at the graph, it is immediately obvious that both companies A and B witnessed the downward trend of waste output over 15-year period, while the waste output of company C went up considerably.
In 2000, in terms of the amounts of the waste output in three companies, company A produced 12 tonnes while companies B and C only created an average of around 8 tonnes and 4 tonnes respectively. Over the following 5 years, both companies B and C rose slightly 2 tonnes but the figures of company A fell by approximately 1 tonne.
From 2005 to 2015, the trend of three companies fluctuated significantly. Company A still went down slowly around 2 tonnes and company C went up with the same amount at 7 tonnes of waste output. In contrast, Company B had a dramatic fall in waste production by approximately 4 tonnes in 2010. By 2015, the amount of waste of the company C had risen to just over 10 tonnes while company A and B dropped significantly to 8 tonnes and 3 tonnes respectively.
The given graph illustrates how much waste is created by three companies over the course of 15 years beginning at 2000.
Looking at the graph, it is immediately obvious that both companies A and B witnessed the downward trend of waste output over 15-year period, while the waste output of company C went up considerably.
In 2000, in terms of the amounts of the waste output in three companies, company A produced 12 tonnes while companies B and C only created an average of around 8 tonnes and 4 tonnes respectively. Over the following 5 years, both companies B and C rose slightly 2 tonnes but the figures of company A fell by approximately 1 tonne.
From 2005 to 2015, the trend of three companies fluctuated significantly. Company A still went down slowly around 2 tonnes and company C went up with the same amount at 7 tonnes of waste output. In contrast, Company B had a dramatic fall in waste production by approximately 4 tonnes in 2010. By 2015, the amount of waste of the company C had risen to just over 10 tonnes while company A and B dropped significantly to 8 tonnes and 3 tonnes respectively.
- It is clear that there’s extreme contrary in the variations of the two values over the first decade of the 21st century. While more and more money was spent on cell phone service, landline phone, on the other hand, shows a tendency of steady decrease.Th 78
- The pie charts above give a percentage about water consumption in San Diego County, California and the rest of the world. It is clear from the chart that both San Diego and California consume the most water for residential demand while global population u 73
- The first line graph shows the average monthly spending on children’s sports by their parents from 2008 to 2014 while the second one presents the amount of children participating in football, athletics and swimming in the UK at the same time.It is clear 73
- he line chart above compares the amount of beef, pork, broilers and turkey, which the Americans consumed each year between 1995 and 2012.It is clear from the chart that both broilers and turkey flesh eating, increased significantly from 1960 to 2012 while 78
- The given graph illustrates how much waste is created by three companies over the course of 15 years beginning at 2000.Looking at the graph, it is immediately obvious that both companies A and B witnessed the downward trend of waste output over 15-year pe 67
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, look, still, while, in contrast
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 : 8.0 6.8 118% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 2.0 5.60731707317 36% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 33.7804878049 112% => 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: 918.0 965.302439024 95% => OK
No of words: 199.0 196.424390244 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.61306532663 4.92477711251 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.75589349951 3.73543355544 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92897153807 2.65546596893 110% => OK
Unique words: 95.0 106.607317073 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.477386934673 0.547539520022 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 273.6 283.868780488 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
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: 41.9953494449 43.030603864 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.75 112.824112599 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.875 22.9334400587 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.23603664747 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 3.70975609756 27% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 1.13902439024 439% => 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: 0.516880707549 0.215688989381 240% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.280374786365 0.103423049105 271% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.245625619829 0.0843802449381 291% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.452859856616 0.15604864568 290% => Maybe some contents are duplicated.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.252297892828 0.0819641961636 308% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.2329268293 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 64.04 61.2550243902 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.3012195122 100% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.75 11.4140731707 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.29 8.06136585366 90% => OK
difficult_words: 31.0 40.7170731707 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.4329268293 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.9970731707 105% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.0658536585 90% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.