The graph above shows the consumption of fish and some different kinds of mear in a European country between 1979 and 2004 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant

Essay topics:

The graph above shows the consumption of fish and some different kinds of mear in a European country between 1979 and 2004.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The graph depicts a data of fish and meat consumption in a European country from the end of 1970's to early 2000. It shows that the amount of fish people eats per week is rather constant than the amount of different kinds of meat. With time people started to eat fish less as the graph shows a decline in the amount of fish consumption. It went almost 60 grams to around 45 gram per week within the given time frame.
On the other hand, among the 3 types of meat the consumption of chicken grew higher and higher with time. In 1979 the amount of chicken a person ate in week was around 150 grams, now after 25 years it became above 250 grams. The consumption of beef fluctuated a lot since 1979. At first it went higher form 210 grams to 240 grams per week but in 2004 it went down to 110 grams. From the graph we see that consumption of lamb rapidly decreased with time.
Finally we can see that among the 3 types of meat, consumption of chicken increased at a high rate whereas people started to eat less and less lamb and beef.

Votes
Average: 7.3 (1 vote)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2022-01-21 Nugi 78 view
2021-11-09 Jatin Chaudhari 78 view
2020-07-26 R.K 73 view

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 273, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[1]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...th time people started to eat fish less as the graph shows a decline in the amount...
^^
Line 1, column 374, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'gram' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'grams'.
Suggestion: grams
...n. It went almost 60 grams to around 45 gram per week within the given time frame. ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
... of lamb rapidly decreased with time. Finally we can see that among the 3 types of me...
^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, so, whereas, on the other hand

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 2.0 7.0 29% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 10.0 5.60731707317 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 33.7804878049 121% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 3.97073170732 151% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 836.0 965.302439024 87% => OK
No of words: 198.0 196.424390244 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.22222222222 4.92477711251 86% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.75116612262 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.15873498159 2.65546596893 81% => OK
Unique words: 103.0 106.607317073 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520202020202 0.547539520022 95% => OK
syllable_count: 231.3 283.868780488 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.2 1.45097560976 83% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.33902439024 46% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 3.36585365854 178% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.4926829268 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 27.1322686114 43.030603864 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.6 112.824112599 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8 22.9334400587 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 5.23603664747 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 1.69756097561 177% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.09268292683 195% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.15434880785 0.215688989381 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0693349167198 0.103423049105 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0515832126144 0.0843802449381 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0953823798165 0.15604864568 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0604546877778 0.0819641961636 74% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.3 13.2329268293 63% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 86.03 61.2550243902 140% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.0 10.3012195122 58% => Flesch kincaid grade is low.
coleman_liau_index: 7.2 11.4140731707 63% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 5.85 8.06136585366 73% => OK
difficult_words: 16.0 40.7170731707 39% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.4329268293 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.9970731707 87% => OK
text_standard: 6.0 11.0658536585 54% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.