he line chart above compares the amount of beef, pork, broilers and turkey, which the Americans consumed each year between 1995 and 2012.
It is clear from the chart that both broilers and turkey flesh eating, increased significantly from 1960 to 2012 while beef figure still remained steady, but less Americans consumed pork than the others from 1955 to 2012.
In 1995, the US used almost 60 pounds for beef and 50 pounds for pork. Over 57 years, the amount of pork that Americans ate fluctuated between 55 and 40 pounds with a peak of 54 pounds by 1971 and 1981 when the lowest point was 40 pounds by 1976. Whereas beef pattern kept growing to the highest point of 90 pounds in 1976 but suddenly fell fast over 36 years later and be the same rate as the beginning point.
By 1960, Americans ate 15 pounds of broilers and 5 pounds of turkey. But more and more broilers were eaten with the highest amount of 60 pounds by 2006 then fell slowly over a 6-year later. Although tending to rise, turkey rate didn’t grow as fast as broilers’ and ended up with over 10 pounds by 2012.
The line chart above compares the amount of beef, pork, broilers and turkey, which the Americans consumed each year between 1995 and 2012.
It is clear from the chart that both broilers and turkey flesh eating, increased significantly from 1960 to 2012 while beef figure still remained steady, but less Americans consumed pork than the others from 1955 to 2012.
In 1995, the US used almost 60 pounds for beef and 50 pounds for pork. Over 57 years, the amount of pork that Americans ate fluctuated between 55 and 40 pounds with a peak of 54 pounds by 1971 and 1981 when the lowest point was 40 pounds by 1976. Whereas beef pattern kept growing to the highest point of 90 pounds in 1976 but suddenly fell fast over 36 years later and be the same rate as the beginning point.
By 1960, Americans ate 15 pounds of broilers and 5 pounds of turkey. But more and more broilers were eaten with the highest amount of 60 pounds by 2006 then fell slowly over a 6-year later. Although tending to rise, turkey rate didn’t grow as fast as broilers’ and ended up with over 10 pounds by 2012.
- The line chart above compares waste products in tonnes among 3 companies A, B and C from 2000 to 2005.It can be seen from the graph that company A and B tended to produce less waste than they used to by the beginning. On the other hand, company C’s rate 67
- The pie charts above depict the median ages of Yemeni and Italian citizens in 2000 and predictions in 2050.It is well-defined from the charts that kids, teenagers and adults under 60 years old account for most of Yemen’s population both in 2000 and 2050 73
- The line graph above illustrates variations in the average prices of food and oil on a global scale in 11 years from 2000 to 2011.Overall, there’re striking similarities in the way two values change through over one decade, which show the clearest diff 73
- The line chart above demonstrates the average number of people travelling long distances to work by car of public transports, bus and train in particular, in the UK from 1970 to 2030.It is clear that there were and will be significant changes in the numbe 73
- The line chart above compares the amount of beef, pork, broilers and turkey, which the Americans consumed each year between 1995 and 2012.It is clear from the chart that both broilers and turkey flesh eating, increased significantly from 1960 to 2012 whil 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 10, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'charts'.
Suggestion: charts
The line chart above compares the amount of beef, pork...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 111, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t more and more broilers were eaten with the highest amount of 60 pounds by 2006 ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, still, then, whereas, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 7.0 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 6.8 191% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 4.0 5.60731707317 71% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 33.7804878049 95% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 3.97073170732 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 895.0 965.302439024 93% => OK
No of words: 198.0 196.424390244 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.5202020202 4.92477711251 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.75116612262 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.21041975985 2.65546596893 83% => OK
Unique words: 115.0 106.607317073 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.580808080808 0.547539520022 106% => OK
syllable_count: 232.2 283.868780488 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.2 1.45097560976 83% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.482926829268 621% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.4926829268 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.5637467665 43.030603864 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.875 112.824112599 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.75 22.9334400587 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5 5.23603664747 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 1.69756097561 118% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.09268292683 122% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.443161644943 0.215688989381 205% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.221400027751 0.103423049105 214% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.23886797066 0.0843802449381 283% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.374890390711 0.15604864568 240% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.256978195921 0.0819641961636 314% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.2329268293 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 80.96 61.2550243902 132% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 10.3012195122 77% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.23 11.4140731707 81% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.98 8.06136585366 87% => OK
difficult_words: 27.0 40.7170731707 66% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.4329268293 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.9970731707 105% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => 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.