The line graph illustrates the fish and meat consumption in gram per person per week in a European country between 1979 and 2004.
The line graph illustrates the fish and meat consumption in gram per person per week in a European country between 1979 and 2004.
It is clear that fish consumption was the lowest throughout the period. Overall, almost all the figure for fish and meat witnessed a decline, while those of chicken increased significantly.
In 2000, beef stood out as being consumed far more than the others, at over 200 grams per person. In contrast, the data of fish was sharply lower at roughly 60 grams. In comparison, the food consumption derived from chicken and lamb were nearly equal at approximately 150 grams.
As is observed, during the period shown, those of beef witness a plummet to just over 100 grams, despite hitting a peak in 1984. The data of chicken increased exponentially to roughly 250 grams, while lamb consumption showed an opposite trend, with a significant drop to about 80 grams. Furthermore, a minimal decrease can be seen in the data of fish to just below 1979 figure.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-03-13 | promen9x1999 | 88 | view |
- The line graph illustrates the fish and meat consumption in gram per person per week in a European country between 1979 and 2004 88
- The graph below shows average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per person in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy and Portugal between 1967 and 2007(the graph in the picture given down below) 50
- The pie chart compares the percentage of commuters using for different types of transport in an European city in 1960, 1980 and 2000. 84
- The tables below give information about sales of Fairtrade labelled coffee and bananas in 1999 and 2004 in five European countries 43
- The first chart below shows how energy is used in an average Australian household. The second paragraph shows the green house gas emission which result from this energy use 57
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 167, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... was sharply lower at roughly 60 grams. In comparison, the food consumption derive...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, if, so, while, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 7.0 100% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 6.8 59% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 4.0 5.60731707317 71% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 33.7804878049 92% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 3.97073170732 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 817.0 965.302439024 85% => OK
No of words: 168.0 196.424390244 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.8630952381 4.92477711251 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.60020574368 3.73543355544 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72475398835 2.65546596893 103% => OK
Unique words: 106.0 106.607317073 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.630952380952 0.547539520022 115% => OK
syllable_count: 234.0 283.868780488 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.114634146341 0% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.07073170732 280% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 3.36585365854 208% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.4926829268 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 27.3744045541 43.030603864 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.7777777778 112.824112599 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6666666667 22.9334400587 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.33333333333 5.23603664747 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => 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: 6.0 4.09268292683 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.370907856911 0.215688989381 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.164159299653 0.103423049105 159% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.298082105093 0.0843802449381 353% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.320275452046 0.15604864568 205% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.393375154547 0.0819641961636 480% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 13.2329268293 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 70.13 61.2550243902 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 10.3012195122 77% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.91 11.4140731707 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.91 8.06136585366 98% => OK
difficult_words: 36.0 40.7170731707 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.4329268293 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.9970731707 84% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.