The line graph below shows changes in the amount and type of fast food consumed by Australian teenagers from 1975 to 2000.
The given graph compares the changing intake frequency and trend of the fast-food habit in Australian teenagers over a period of 25 years from 1975 to 2000. The survey is done mainly on three junk foods: pizza, hamburgers, and fish chips.
Looking from the overall perspective, it is readily apparent that the pizza and hamburgers experienced a dramatic spike in demand among teenagers by the end of the period. On the contrary, fish chips, which were leading in the earlier years, fell sharply struggling with few fluctuations. Although pizza and hamburgers grew at the same pace, hamburgers won the limelight.
According to the given illustration, at the start of the period, a teenager was consuming fish chips 100 times a year, which was the most significant figure of the period. However, a steady dropdown slipped the eating frequency by 15 in the next five years. Despite a noticeable rise in 1985, the trend plummeted far below the other two foods to the lowest value of just 40 in 2000.
On the other hand, a contrasting trend was witnessed in the context of the other two foods. Pizza and hamburgers, which started with the least demand of 3 and 5 in 1975, observed a significant surge before achieving a stagnancy. The latter rose in demand to 82 times as against just 30 times after a decade. With the passing time, the pizza got leveled off at 82 between 1995 and 2000, while the demand for hamburgers grew further before stabilizing at peak value 100 during the last 5 years.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-05-30 | baoquyen1906 | 78 | view |
| 2023-01-16 | beobuic1 | view | |
| 2023-01-16 | beobuic1 | view | |
| 2022-08-07 | Taiwo Morounfolu | view | |
| 2022-08-07 | Taiwo Morounfolu | view |
- Explain some of the ways in which humans are damaging the environment What can governments do to address these problems What can individual people do 89
- The charts below show the levels of participation in education and science in developing and industrialized countries in 1980 and 1990 Describe the information 73
- The charts below compare the age structure of the populations of France and India in 1984 89
- The table below shows the percentage of the population who rode bicycles in one town by age group in 2012 96
- The graph below shows the amounts of waste produced by three companies over a period of 15 years 84
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, look, while, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 7.0 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 2.0 5.60731707317 36% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 33.7804878049 136% => 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: 1251.0 965.302439024 130% => OK
No of words: 258.0 196.424390244 131% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8488372093 4.92477711251 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00778971557 3.73543355544 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64177641621 2.65546596893 99% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 106.607317073 139% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.573643410853 0.547539520022 105% => OK
syllable_count: 355.5 283.868780488 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.33902439024 184% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 3.36585365854 178% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 8.94146341463 134% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.4926829268 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.2697842807 43.030603864 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.25 112.824112599 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5 22.9334400587 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.23603664747 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 3.70975609756 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 1.13902439024 351% => Less 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: 0.162352884715 0.215688989381 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0552679600043 0.103423049105 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100073007512 0.0843802449381 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113871737817 0.15604864568 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.101721149791 0.0819641961636 124% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.2329268293 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 67.08 61.2550243902 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 10.3012195122 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.85 11.4140731707 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.06136585366 103% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 40.7170731707 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.4329268293 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.9970731707 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => 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.