The graph below shows the proportion of four different materials that were recycled from 1982 to 2010 in a particular country.

Essay topics:

The graph below shows the proportion of four different materials that were recycled from 1982 to 2010 in a particular country.

The provided line graph represents an overview of the amount of four various materials (Paper and cardboard, Glass container, Aluminium cans and Plastics), which recycled in a particular country from 1982 to 2010.

Overall, it can be clearly seen that recycling of Paper and cardboard and Glass containers increased after fluctuated; whereas, Aluminium cans ascending gradually over the periods.

Almost 65% Papers and cardboard material recycled in 1982 and it increased by 5% after the four years. Surprisingly, it rose significantly after declined and peaked at 80% in 1994. After 1994, it descending gradually and reached at 70% in 2010. Glass containers recycled 50% in the beginning period, but it dropped by 10% after eight years. From 1990 to 2010, it was increased steadily and touched at 60% in 2010.

However, Aluminium cans and plastics could not recycled in the beginning four years. In 1986, Aluminium cans recycled nearly 5%. The recycling rat of it waclimbed up step by step from 1986 to 2010; it was approximately 45% in the end of period. Furthermore, the recycling rate of Plastic was least of position compared to the others three materials and it increased literally and reached at nearly 10% in 2010.

Votes
Average: 7.3 (1 vote)
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 48, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'recycle'
Suggestion: recycle
..., Aluminium cans and plastics could not recycled in the beginning four years. In 1986, A...
^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, however, if, whereas

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: 2.0 1.00243902439 200% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 6.8 191% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 10.0 5.60731707317 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 33.7804878049 112% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 3.97073170732 25% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1027.0 965.302439024 106% => OK
No of words: 200.0 196.424390244 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.135 4.92477711251 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.76060309309 3.73543355544 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81458700345 2.65546596893 106% => OK
Unique words: 106.0 106.607317073 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.53 0.547539520022 97% => OK
syllable_count: 283.5 283.868780488 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 1.53170731707 326% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 8.94146341463 123% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.4926829268 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 50.7634279756 43.030603864 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.3636363636 112.824112599 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1818181818 22.9334400587 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.45454545455 5.23603664747 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 3.70975609756 162% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.09268292683 122% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.245945479371 0.215688989381 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101895646056 0.103423049105 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0778546698508 0.0843802449381 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161369574106 0.15604864568 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0905025347919 0.0819641961636 110% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.2329268293 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 70.13 61.2550243902 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 10.3012195122 77% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 11.4140731707 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.06136585366 102% => OK
difficult_words: 47.0 40.7170731707 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.9970731707 84% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => 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.