The graph below shows the consumption of fish and some different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004.
The line graph describes information on the changes of weekly intake of four categories of meat in a European country in the years 1979 and 2004 in terms of grams per capita.
Overall, only the consumption of chicken saw an upward trend, while that of others experienced a downward trend.
Despite starting at similar levels (around 150 grams), the consumption of chciken and lamb showed opposite trends. The former increased soared dramatically to a high of 250 grams in 2004, becoming the highest of all, whereas the latter declined substantially to approximately 110 grams.
In contrast, the amounts of beef and fish consumed witnessed similar downward trends with beef being much more popular than fish over the whole period. At a close look, fish, the least consumed food of all, dropped only by 10 to 50 grams in 2004, when the weekly intake of beef accounted for the second highest at nearly 110 grams per capita after being overtaken by chicken in 1989.
| 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 graph below shows the consumption of fish and some different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004 78
- The money spent by governments on space programmes would be better spent on vital public services such as schools and hospitals To what extent do you agree or disagree 61
- Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement 73
- The graph below shows the number of tourists visiting a particular Caribbean island between 2010 and 2017 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 69
- The bar chart below shows the percentage of Australian men and women in different age groups who did regular physical activity in 2010
Transition Words or Phrases used:
look, second, so, whereas, while, in contrast
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: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 6.8 44% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 1.0 5.60731707317 18% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 33.7804878049 101% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 808.0 965.302439024 84% => OK
No of words: 163.0 196.424390244 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.95705521472 4.92477711251 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.57311423478 3.73543355544 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57440740519 2.65546596893 97% => OK
Unique words: 104.0 106.607317073 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.638036809816 0.547539520022 117% => OK
syllable_count: 229.5 283.868780488 81% => 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: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
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: 27.0 22.4926829268 120% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 40.8931534612 43.030603864 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.666666667 112.824112599 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.1666666667 22.9334400587 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5 5.23603664747 143% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => 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: 4.0 4.09268292683 98% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.173224583982 0.215688989381 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0801126073674 0.103423049105 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0679378074431 0.0843802449381 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101946037198 0.15604864568 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0744201331322 0.0819641961636 91% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 13.2329268293 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 60.99 61.2550243902 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.3012195122 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 11.4140731707 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.06136585366 110% => OK
difficult_words: 40.0 40.7170731707 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.9970731707 116% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => 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.