The graph below shows the proportion of four different materials that were recycled from 1982 to 2010 in a particular country.
Summaries the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant.
The poly line graph illustrates the information about the terms of percentage of reusing rate of four various selected materials ( paper and cardboard, glass containers, aluminium cans and plastics) which was in 28 years during 1980 and 2010 in a specific nation.
In overall, paper and cardboard constituted a major for recycled since reused of plastics was least. However, a significant variations can be noticed in all materials over the periods.
With regards, it can be seen from the information that in a particular region, the paper and cardboard more popular for reusing during the given times which remained relatively constant at two third between 1982 and 1990 and it was seven in ten during 1986. After this, recycling rate of paper and cardboard raised dramatically and reached to peak at four fifths in 1994 where it started countinously fallout in remained years which accounted at 70% in one given country. Likewise, between 1982 and 1984, the reused of plastics was negligible and it started recycled from 1990 at only 1% whilst it slightly inclined and never below up one in ten from 1994 to 2010.
The graph further proves that reusing of glass containers shown a zigzag trend it started from a half in 1982 and declined at more than two fifths as well as 40% during 1986 and 1990 in particular country. Even though, it grown drastically and reached at three fifths in the end of the periods. Furthermore, not any number of aluminium cans recycled in 1982. Apart from that, the reusing rate of aluminium cans were found at 45%, 35% and 25% respectively between 2010, 2006 and 2002. Lastly, a disparity of 5% can be observed among aluminium cans for recycled at 20%, 15% and 5% from 1998 to 1986.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 129, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... rate of four various selected materials paper and cardboard, glass containers, a...
^^
Line 3, column 125, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'variation'?
Suggestion: variation
...stics was least. However, a significant variations can be noticed in all materials over th...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 482, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d at 70% in one given country. Likewise, between 1982 and 1984, the reused of pla...
^^
Line 7, column 308, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... in the end of the periods. Furthermore, not any number of aluminium cans recycle...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, however, if, lastly, likewise, third, well, apart from, in particular, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 7.0 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 1.00243902439 299% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 18.0 6.8 265% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 7.0 3.15609756098 222% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 11.0 5.60731707317 196% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 57.0 33.7804878049 169% => 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: 1424.0 965.302439024 148% => OK
No of words: 294.0 196.424390244 150% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.84353741497 4.92477711251 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14082457966 3.73543355544 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61257482681 2.65546596893 98% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 106.607317073 141% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.510204081633 0.547539520022 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 401.4 283.868780488 141% => 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: 7.0 4.33902439024 161% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 8.94146341463 123% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.4926829268 116% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.1839087009 43.030603864 161% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.454545455 112.824112599 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.7272727273 22.9334400587 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.54545454545 5.23603664747 163% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 1.69756097561 236% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 3.70975609756 162% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.09268292683 98% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.184795739982 0.215688989381 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0740801630715 0.103423049105 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0403834214547 0.0843802449381 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111949945376 0.15604864568 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0387974738459 0.0819641961636 47% => 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: 14.7 13.2329268293 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 62.01 61.2550243902 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.3012195122 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.09 11.4140731707 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.06136585366 99% => OK
difficult_words: 57.0 40.7170731707 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.4329268293 127% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.9970731707 113% => 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.