The chart below compares levels of recycling, as well as some less environmentally friendly forms of waste management, in fifteen European countries.
The data source illustrates the proportion of 4 different kinds of waste via the process of putting to landfill, recycling, incineration and other practices in 15 nations in Europe in the year of 2004
It is evident that the Europeans disposed of their garbage mostly to the landfill, while only Australians and Belgians considered recycling as a main method of waste management. Moreover, only 4 countries in the EU got rid of their trash via alternative ways.
As can be seen from the chart, people from Greece and Ireland dumped over 90% of their waste to the junkyard, while those from Denmark were less than one-tenth as likely to do so. Furthermore, in terms of other forms of waste management, Spain came in second dealing with nearly 8%, following the lead of Germany with over 10% and profoundly beating Australia and Sweden by nearly 7%.
Looking at the chart in more detail, Australia and Belgium were the two most environmentally friendly nations that composted roundly 60% and 50% of their garbage respectively. Meanwhile, recycled and composted waste accounted for only 10% in some countries namely Greece, Ireland and UK. At the same time, Denmark and Luxembourg made use of the practice of incineration more than other ones to burn more than 60% of the waste for the former and less than a bit of that for the latter.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 201, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...15 nations in Europe in the year of 2004 It is evident that the Europeans dispose...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 62, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he chart, people from Greece and Ireland dumped over 90% of their waste to the ju...
^^
Line 5, column 328, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...lowing the lead of Germany with over 10% and profoundly beating Australia and Swe...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, if, look, moreover, second, so, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 7.0 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 6.8 162% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 9.0 5.60731707317 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 33.7804878049 115% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 3.97073170732 126% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1117.0 965.302439024 116% => OK
No of words: 228.0 196.424390244 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89912280702 4.92477711251 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.88582923847 3.73543355544 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74101051768 2.65546596893 103% => OK
Unique words: 130.0 106.607317073 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.570175438596 0.547539520022 104% => OK
syllable_count: 336.6 283.868780488 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.07073170732 280% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 3.36585365854 59% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 32.0 22.4926829268 142% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 89.1002645499 43.030603864 207% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 159.571428571 112.824112599 141% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.5714285714 22.9334400587 142% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.14285714286 5.23603664747 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 1.69756097561 177% => 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: 1.0 4.09268292683 24% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.168510818677 0.215688989381 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0671536362065 0.103423049105 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0331677588689 0.0843802449381 39% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0869964554196 0.15604864568 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0214201148944 0.0819641961636 26% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.9 13.2329268293 135% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.46 61.2550243902 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 10.3012195122 142% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 11.4140731707 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.06136585366 108% => OK
difficult_words: 50.0 40.7170731707 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 11.4329268293 162% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.8 10.9970731707 135% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.0658536585 136% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.