The bar chart compares the weekly expenditure on three types of convenient food in Britain, and the line graph illustrates the grammes consumed of these products from 1970 and 1990.
As shown by the chart, each wealthy British spend 42 pence a week on hamburgers, followed by the figures for the average and low income groups, recording at 33 and 14 pence respectively. However, the largest amount of expenditure on fish and chips belongs to the moderate income class, compared to 18 pence of each of the other two earnings brackets. Pizza takes every British residents with high income around 20 pence per week, almost double the figures for those with lower earnings.
Regarding the consumption of fast foods in 1970-1990 period, it is noticeable that there are significant increases in the amount of hamburgers and pizza consumed. In particular, despite recording at under 100 grams each in 1970, both figures have reached over 500 and nearly 300 grams respectively by 1990. Meanwhile, after considerable decline until 1985, when hitting 200 grams, fish and chips saw a slight increase, peaking at around 230 grams.
Overall, in 1990, hamburgers and pizza are the most popular fast foods for the high-income class in Britain; meanwhile, these two products also saw increasing trends in consumption over the period surveyed.
- The chart below shows the amount of money per week spent on fast foods in Britain The graph shows the trends in consumption of fast foods 78
- The diagram below shows the stages and equipment used in the cement making process and how cement is used to produce concrete for building purposes Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 89
- The charts below show the results of a survey of adult education The first chart shows the reasons why adults decide to study The pie chart shows how people think the costs of adult education should be shared 84
- The diagram below shows the stages and equipment used in the cement making process and how cement is used to produce concrete for building purposes 89
- The maps below show the sites of a school in 2013 and the planned one in 2016 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 71
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, regarding, so, while, in particular
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 : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 33.7804878049 112% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 3.97073170732 50% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1116.0 965.302439024 116% => OK
No of words: 216.0 196.424390244 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16666666667 4.92477711251 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.83365862548 3.73543355544 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68773824988 2.65546596893 101% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 106.607317073 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.638888888889 0.547539520022 117% => OK
syllable_count: 320.4 283.868780488 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.33902439024 46% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.07073170732 280% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.4926829268 120% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 23.4467481754 43.030603864 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 139.5 112.824112599 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.0 22.9334400587 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.75 5.23603664747 129% => 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 : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
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: 0.187947041631 0.215688989381 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0832455044594 0.103423049105 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0799178883094 0.0843802449381 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123434398641 0.15604864568 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0502068591489 0.0819641961636 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 13.2329268293 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 61.2550243902 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 10.3012195122 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 11.4140731707 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.14 8.06136585366 113% => OK
difficult_words: 57.0 40.7170731707 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.4329268293 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.9970731707 116% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.0658536585 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.