sfasfas
The presented pie chart illustrates the food budget that people spent on restaurant meals and home cooking was calculated in percentage from 1970 to 2000. Meanwhile, the line chart shows the number of meals eaten in fast food restaurants and sit-down restaurants during 30 years.
Overall, money which were used for restaurant meals climbed sharply and the total of meals which were in fast food restaurant had a steepy growth.
In term of propotion of food fund spent on restaurant meals in 1970 accounted for 10%, rose moderately in 1990 to 15% before reaching at peak (50%) in 2000. On the other hand, in 1970, the expenditure on home cooking made up 90% which were more 80% than that of on restaurant meals. After that, it experienced a huge fall at about 50% in 2000.
According to the second chart, the number of fast food meals started at 20 in 1970, at the same point of sitdown restaurant meals. In the period from 1980 to 1990, the number of meals in which people enjoyed fast food and sitdown restaurant increased day by day, nearly 60 meals and 45 meals per year. Then, the number of fast food meals reached its highest level in 2000, at close to 90 meals, more 40 meals than the number of sitdown restaurant meals at the same time.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-05-17 | tramhuynh123 | 11 | view |
- Deaths in Someland 1990 and medical research funding in Someland 76
- Without capital punishment (the death penalty) our lives are less secure and crimes of violence increase. Capital punishment is essential to control violence in society. 61
- Comparison of car theft 67
- The pie charts below show the average household expenditures in Japan and Malaysia in the year 2010. 61
- the charts below show the percentage of the food budget the average family spent on restaurant meals in different years. The grap shows the number of meals eaten in fast food restaurant and sitdown restaurants. 56
Transition Words or Phrases used:
second, then, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 7.48453608247 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 4.92783505155 0% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 5.05154639175 99% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 3.03092783505 231% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 5.0 32.9175257732 15% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 26.3917525773 182% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 3.85567010309 26% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1025.0 937.175257732 109% => OK
No of words: 223.0 206.0 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.59641255605 4.54256449028 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86434787811 3.78020617076 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.36655767437 2.54303337028 93% => OK
Unique words: 113.0 127.690721649 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.506726457399 0.622605031667 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 274.5 290.88556701 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.2 1.41237113402 85% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 9.13402061856 11% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.360824742268 0% => OK
Article: 6.0 0.824742268041 728% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 1.83505154639 54% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.463917525773 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 1.44329896907 554% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 12.6804123711 71% => 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: 24.0 16.3608247423 147% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 31.6219957827 44.8134815571 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.888888889 76.5299724578 149% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.7777777778 16.8248392259 147% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.22222222222 4.34317383033 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.29896907216 93% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 2.54639175258 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 7.41237113402 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.49484536082 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.94845360825 25% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.216113520407 0% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0766984524023 0% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0603063233224 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.12726935374 0% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0580467560999 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 8.37731958763 150% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 80.96 70.7449484536 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 3.82989690722 81% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 7.45979381443 106% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.7 8.71597938144 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.88 7.59969072165 91% => OK
difficult_words: 29.0 41.2886597938 70% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 8.62886597938 156% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 8.54432989691 136% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 8.15463917526 172% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 11.2359550562 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.