The charts below show the percentage of their food budget the avergae family spent on restaurant meals in different years. The graph shows the number of meals eaten in fast food restaurants and sit-down restaurants.
The pie charts give information on how the families allocate their money on restaurants every decade from 1970 to 2000. The line graph, in addition, illustrates the number of meals they eat in two types of restaurants between 1970 and 2000. In general, families budget for outdoor meals increased significantly over the decades, and fast food were far more popular than sit-down restaurants among them.
As can be seen, home-cooked meals accounted for the majority of the food budget in 1970 and 1980. People paid only 10% and 15% of their food plan for restaurants respectively in these two years. Over the following decades, the proportion of fund used for outdoor meals grew rapidly to 35% in 1990, and the figure was exactly a half by 2000.
The line graph indicates that people ate only 20 meals per year in both fast food and sit-down restaurants in 1970. By the following decade, the number of meals they hd in both kinds of restaurants rose gradually to around 30 times per year, with the higher figure for sit-down ones. However, over the next twenty years, sit-down restaurant became much less popular than fast food meals, with just below 50 times and almost 90 times per year respectively.
In conclusion, families tended to spend more money on food in restaurants than home-cooked meals, and fast food became highly popular among them during the period.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-15 | kaka singh | 89 | view |
| 2019-12-30 | Annie442 | 58 | view |
| 2019-12-27 | rahulsd | 61 | view |
| 2019-11-25 | Chandrakumar Chanthujan | 67 | view |
| 2019-10-28 | Tosyne | 67 | view |
- The bar chart below show the percentage of Australian men and women in different age groups who did regular physical activity in 2010. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 78
- The charts below show the percentage of their food budget the avergae family spent on restaurant meals in different years. The graph shows the number of meals eaten in fast food restaurants and sit-down restaurants. 67
- The bar chart below gives information about vehicle ownership in China. 73
- The table below shows the sales made by a coffee shop in an office building on a typical weekday. 73
- The graph below shows annual water usage (in millions of cubic meters) by industries in some country. 67
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, in addition, in conclusion, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 7.0 43% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 6.8 118% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 8.0 5.60731707317 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 43.0 33.7804878049 127% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1140.0 965.302439024 118% => OK
No of words: 232.0 196.424390244 118% => OK
Chars per words: 4.91379310345 4.92477711251 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.90276135726 3.73543355544 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5398722898 2.65546596893 96% => OK
Unique words: 124.0 106.607317073 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.534482758621 0.547539520022 98% => OK
syllable_count: 327.6 283.868780488 115% => 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: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.482926829268 621% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 3.36585365854 238% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 27.7928048243 43.030603864 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.0 112.824112599 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2 22.9334400587 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.1 5.23603664747 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
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: 4.0 4.09268292683 98% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.393856042678 0.215688989381 183% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.167829383657 0.103423049105 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0623759583193 0.0843802449381 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.241377142854 0.15604864568 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0639252946084 0.0819641961636 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.2329268293 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 61.2550243902 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.3012195122 96% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 11.4140731707 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.3 8.06136585366 91% => OK
difficult_words: 37.0 40.7170731707 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => 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.