The graph below shows the proportion of four different materials that were recycled from 1982 to 2010 in a particular country.
The line graph represents how often four materials were recycled in a selected country between 1982 and 2010. Overall, people in this country recycled these materials at higher frequencies throughout the period.
The majority of glass containers and wood-sourced objects were recycled consistently during this time. Going into more detail, in 1982, 65% of all glass containers and half of all paper and cardboard went through the recycling process. The period between 1982 and 1994 witnessed erratic changes in the recycling rate for these materials; however, after 1994, they saw more regular changes. To clarify, the recycling rate of glass bottles fell from a high of 80% in 1992 to 70% in 2010, whereas the rate for paper and cardboard climbed from one-half to three-fifths.
In addition, even though the recycling rate for aluminium cans and plastics remained well under those of the other two materials, these rates nevertheless saw consistent growth. The rate of plastic recycling climbed from 1% in 1990 to nearly 10% in 2010. More significantly, the proportion of recycled aluminum cans witnessed an increase at a factor of 23: from 2% in 1986 to 46% in 2010.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, nevertheless, so, well, whereas, in addition
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 : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 0.0 3.15609756098 0% => OK
Pronoun: 7.0 5.60731707317 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 33.7804878049 115% => 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: 994.0 965.302439024 103% => OK
No of words: 191.0 196.424390244 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20418848168 4.92477711251 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.71756304063 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79601740521 2.65546596893 105% => OK
Unique words: 111.0 106.607317073 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.581151832461 0.547539520022 106% => OK
syllable_count: 274.5 283.868780488 97% => 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: 6.0 4.33902439024 138% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.4926829268 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.6768691551 43.030603864 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.444444444 112.824112599 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2222222222 22.9334400587 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.33333333333 5.23603664747 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.266473476889 0.215688989381 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.12113742465 0.103423049105 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.086007738622 0.0843802449381 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192469434497 0.15604864568 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0601298749947 0.0819641961636 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.2329268293 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 67.08 61.2550243902 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 10.3012195122 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 11.4140731707 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.06136585366 104% => OK
difficult_words: 45.0 40.7170731707 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.4329268293 66% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.9970731707 95% => 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.