The line graph above demonstrates the quantity of waste released by three businesses A, B and C over fifteen years from 2000 to 2015.
It’s easy to see that the three above bear little to no resemblance in the fluctuation of waste produced in tonnes.
In the year 2000, company B started out with roughly 8 tonnes of waste, which doubled that of Company C, along with that was 12 tonnes from Company A. Over the next 5 years, the amount of product went into disuse of both Companies B and C showed significant rise, at about 6 tonnes for Company C, and Company B reached its peak at 10. Company A’s waste, however, saw a stable drop to almost 11 tonnes.
From 2005 to 2015, Company A’s waste volume was still going down quite stably, at around 8 tonnes in 2015 while Company B experienced a dramatic fall in theirs, which dropped to the lowest number of only 3 tonnes. Company C’s on the other hand, went the opposite way with a rather gradual increase in the first half of the period and a sharp rise in the other half, reaching its highest at nearly 10 tonnes.
The line graph above demonstrates the quantity of waste released by three businesses A, B and C over fifteen years from 2000 to 2015.
It’s easy to see that the three above bear little to no resemblance in the fluctuation of waste produced in tonnes.
In the year 2000, company B started out with roughly 8 tonnes of waste, which doubled that of Company C, along with that was 12 tonnes from Company A. Over the next 5 years, the amount of product went into disuse of both Companies B and C showed significant rise, at about 6 tonnes for Company C, and Company B reached its peak at 10. Company A’s waste, however, saw a stable drop to almost 11 tonnes.
From 2005 to 2015, Company A’s waste volume was still going down quite stably, at around 8 tonnes in 2015 while Company B experienced a dramatic fall in theirs, which dropped to the lowest number of only 3 tonnes. Company C’s on the other hand, went the opposite way with a rather gradual increase in the first half of the period and a sharp rise in the other half, reaching its highest at nearly 10 tonnes.
- The line chart above demonstrates the average number of people travelling long distances to work by car of public transports, bus and train in particular, in the UK from 1970 to 2030.It is clear that there were and will be significant changes in the numbe 73
- 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 graphs above show the different amount of water used for residential needs, industrial and agricultural purposes in San Diego, California and the World. It is clear that the water usage in the three places is generally different. In San Diego and 67
- The table shows the average length of YouTube video advertisements by sector and average length of time viewers spent watching these advertisements The average length of the advertisements varied from a low of 21 8 seconds for pharmaceuticals to a high of 78
- 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 fr 82
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 10, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'graphs'.
Suggestion: graphs
The line graph above demonstrates the quantity of wast...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, still, while, on the other hand
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 : 4.0 6.8 59% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
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: 891.0 965.302439024 92% => OK
No of words: 198.0 196.424390244 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.5 4.92477711251 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.75116612262 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.37313553514 2.65546596893 89% => OK
Unique words: 120.0 106.607317073 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.606060606061 0.547539520022 111% => OK
syllable_count: 259.2 283.868780488 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.33902439024 46% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 3.36585365854 178% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 7.0 8.94146341463 78% => 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: 28.0 22.4926829268 124% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 46.8606270482 43.030603864 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.285714286 112.824112599 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.2857142857 22.9334400587 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.28571428571 5.23603664747 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 1.13902439024 439% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.09268292683 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.347088019957 0.215688989381 161% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.224998646089 0.103423049105 218% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.262870378242 0.0843802449381 312% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.361873847833 0.15604864568 232% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.277575523108 0.0819641961636 339% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.2329268293 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 68.44 61.2550243902 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.3012195122 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.12 11.4140731707 80% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.9 8.06136585366 98% => OK
difficult_words: 36.0 40.7170731707 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.4329268293 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.9970731707 120% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.0658536585 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.