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 features, and make comparisons where relevant.
Write at least 150 words
From the graph, it is clear that the rate of recycling of paper and cardboard is high through out the given years among all the four materials whereas the recycling rate of plastics are recorded low in most of the years. However the gap between paper and glass containers are getting narrowed down from 15 percent in 1982 to 10 percent in 2010. As we observe the trend, we can infer that the rate of aluminum cans has increased by 45% approximately in the span of 24 years which is the highest increase when compared to others. The graph also shows that all the materials other than paper and cardboard has an increasing trends in their recycling rate since 1994. It is also interesting to note that the recycling rate of plastics had not reduced even in single year from 1990. However the greatest dip recorded was in 1994 when the rate of recycling of both paper and glass containers decreased by 5 percent but paper and cardboard showed a steep rise of 15 percent in the following years which is the highest rise witnessed in one scale
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 87, Rule ID: THROUGH_OUT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'throughout'?
Suggestion: throughout
...ecycling of paper and cardboard is high through out the given years among all the four mate...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 222, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
... are recorded low in most of the years. However the gap between paper and glass contain...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 780, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
... reduced even in single year from 1990. However the greatest dip recorded was in 1994 w...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, so, whereas
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 7.0 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 3.15609756098 253% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 9.0 5.60731707317 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 33.7804878049 98% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 3.97073170732 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 851.0 965.302439024 88% => OK
No of words: 188.0 196.424390244 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.52659574468 4.92477711251 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.70287850203 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.39554886581 2.65546596893 90% => OK
Unique words: 101.0 106.607317073 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.537234042553 0.547539520022 98% => OK
syllable_count: 250.2 283.868780488 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 3.36585365854 30% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 6.0 8.94146341463 67% => 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: 31.0 22.4926829268 138% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 53.8498426697 43.030603864 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.833333333 112.824112599 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.3333333333 22.9334400587 137% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.16666666667 5.23603664747 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 1.0 3.83414634146 26% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 1.69756097561 177% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => 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: 0.109452962546 0.215688989381 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0632493481464 0.103423049105 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0402510305464 0.0843802449381 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109452962546 0.15604864568 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0819641961636 0% => 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: 15.6 13.2329268293 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 65.39 61.2550243902 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.8 10.3012195122 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.59 11.4140731707 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.27 8.06136585366 90% => OK
difficult_words: 25.0 40.7170731707 61% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.4329268293 114% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 10.9970731707 131% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.0658536585 145% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum two paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.