The graph below shows the proportion of four different materials that were recycled from 1982 to 2010 in a particular country.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main feature, and make comparisons where relevant.
The line graph indicates the number of various recycling items that were processed over a period of 28 years in a specific country, with a further classification by level of quality of the recycling materials. As illustrated by the graph, the proportion of glass containers, paper and cardboard that were recycled between 1982 and 2010, was much higher than aluminum cans and plastics.
The analysis of data shows that there is a slight fluctuation regarding the number of glass containers, paper and cardboard that were recycled from 1982 to 1986. The former decreased considerably around 10% (from 50% to 40%) in 1982 and then increased slightly to reach 50% again, whereas the latter increased moderately from around 65% to 70% in 1982, only to finish at around 65% in 1986. In 1990, there was an important increase in paper and cardboard recycling and then a decline between 1990 and 2010. In comparison to the proportion of recycling glass containers, paper and cardboard, the amount of aluminum cans rose significantly over the period of 28 years, from approximately 5% to about 45%. Moreover, the number of plastics that was recycled, rose steadily (reaching from around 5% in 1986 to around 10% in 2010).
The last three decades has seen a substantial growth in the recycling of aluminum cans, plastics and glass containers, in the particular country.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, moreover, regarding, so, then, whereas
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 7.0 100% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 6.8 147% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 33.7804878049 151% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 3.97073170732 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1137.0 965.302439024 118% => OK
No of words: 225.0 196.424390244 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05333333333 4.92477711251 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.87298334621 3.73543355544 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83778386844 2.65546596893 107% => OK
Unique words: 112.0 106.607317073 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.497777777778 0.547539520022 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 320.4 283.868780488 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.33902439024 161% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 22.4926829268 124% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 37.936624784 43.030603864 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.125 112.824112599 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.125 22.9334400587 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.25 5.23603664747 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => 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: 2.0 4.09268292683 49% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.191834890412 0.215688989381 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0928487800901 0.103423049105 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0405617379268 0.0843802449381 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126036868951 0.15604864568 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0487955586509 0.0819641961636 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 13.2329268293 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.98 61.2550243902 98% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.8 10.3012195122 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.31 11.4140731707 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.06136585366 102% => OK
difficult_words: 46.0 40.7170731707 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.4329268293 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.9970731707 120% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.0658536585 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.