The graph below shows the comsumption of fish and some different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004
The line graph compares the amount of fish and some different kinds of meat consumed per person per week in a European country from 1979 to 2004.
Overall, it is clear that chicken was consumed the most in 2004 and the graph saw a decrease in beef, lamb and fish consumption over the same period.
In 1979, people consumed 200 gram beef per week, followed by lamb and fish consumption with exactly 150 and around 60 gram respectively. 1989 saw a dramatic decline in the amount of beef consumption and stood at over 100 gram while fish consumption fluctuated between 40 and 70 gram and the figure for lamp decreased to approximately 70 gram per week in 2004.
Chicken consumption was 150 gram in 1970. It surpassed beef consumption in 1989 and became the most popular food consumption in a European country before reaching a peat at around 240 gram in 2004
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-06-16 | unstoppable | 73 | view |
| 2024-06-16 | unstoppable | 73 | view |
| 2024-06-16 | unstoppable | 73 | view |
| 2024-06-16 | unstoppable | 67 | view |
| 2024-06-16 | unstoppable | 73 | view |
- The chart below gives information about the most common sports played in New Zealand in 2002 81
- Global warming is one of the most serious issues that the world is facing today. What are the causes of global warming and what measures can governments and individuals take to tackle the issue? 78
- Crime rate in teenagers has increased dramatically in many countries in recent years. Give some possible reasons for this increase and suggelst solutions to overcome youth crimes. 67
- The graph below shows the comsumption of fish and some different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004 61
- The table below gives information about the problems faced by children in two primary schools in 2005 and 2015 75
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 119, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'gram' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'grams'.
Suggestion: grams
...sumption with exactly 150 and around 60 gram respectively. 1989 saw a dramatic decli...
^^^^
Line 5, column 222, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'gram' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'grams'.
Suggestion: grams
... beef consumption and stood at over 100 gram while fish consumption fluctuated betwe...
^^^^
Line 5, column 279, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'gram' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'grams'.
Suggestion: grams
...onsumption fluctuated between 40 and 70 gram and the figure for lamp decreased to ap...
^^^^
Line 5, column 338, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'gram' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'grams'.
Suggestion: grams
... for lamp decreased to approximately 70 gram per week in 2004. Chicken consumptio...
^^^^
Line 7, column 29, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'gram' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'grams'.
Suggestion: grams
...in 2004. Chicken consumption was 150 gram in 1970. It surpassed beef consumption ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 185, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'gram' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'grams'.
Suggestion: grams
...ry before reaching a peat at around 240 gram in 2004
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, so, while
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: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 6.8 132% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 3.0 5.60731707317 54% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 33.7804878049 77% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 3.97073170732 176% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 713.0 965.302439024 74% => OK
No of words: 152.0 196.424390244 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.69078947368 4.92477711251 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.51124308557 3.73543355544 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61586591808 2.65546596893 99% => OK
Unique words: 80.0 106.607317073 75% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.526315789474 0.547539520022 96% => OK
syllable_count: 194.4 283.868780488 68% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 25.0 22.4926829268 111% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.9698551589 43.030603864 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.833333333 112.824112599 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.3333333333 22.9334400587 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.16666666667 5.23603664747 41% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 1.69756097561 353% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 3.70975609756 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.09268292683 73% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.22444587516 0.215688989381 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126269762399 0.103423049105 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.13566421353 0.0843802449381 161% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171462058041 0.15604864568 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.143802258731 0.0819641961636 175% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.2329268293 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 71.48 61.2550243902 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 10.3012195122 92% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.22 11.4140731707 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.85 8.06136585366 85% => OK
difficult_words: 19.0 40.7170731707 47% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.4329268293 114% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.9970731707 109% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.0658536585 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
More content wanted.
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.