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
- As most people spend a major part of their adult life at work job satisfaction is an important element of individual wellbeing What factors contribute to job satisfaction How realistic is the expectation of job satisfaction for all workers 61
- 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
- Learning English at school is often seen as more important than learning local languages If these are not taught many are at risk of dying out In your opinion is it important for everyone to learn English Should we try to ensure the survival of local lang 73
- Some people think that because some children find some subjects such as mathematics and philosophy difficult they ought to be optional instead of compulsory To what extent do you agree 78
- 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.