The graph below shows the consumption of fish and different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004.
The graph compares the amount of fish and three different kinds of meat (chicken, beef, lamb), which was consumed by a country in Europe between 1979 and 2004. From the general perspective, different trends in the amount of fish and meat consumption could be observed, including a growth in chicken, a decline in beef, lamb, and fish.
In 1979, the beef had the highest of consumption at over 200 grams per person per week, followed by lamb, chicken, and fish. From 1979 to 1989, the chicken consumption witnessed a significant rise from under 150 grams to about 200 grams, considerably surpassing the consumption of beef, lamb, and fish. On the other hand, the beef and lamb consumption experienced a remarkable reduction by roughly 30 grams and 100 grams respectively. Similarly, the consumption of fish saw a slight decrease by about 10 grams per person per week.
From 1989 to 2004, people tended eating more chicken, which made the amount of chicken consumption grew substantially to about 250 grams. In contrast, the bee, lamb, and fish consumption continued its decline from the previous period, staying at about 100 grams, 60 grams, and 40 grams respectively.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-24 | pateldhruv1708 | 67 | view |
| 2020-01-22 | mary.ssherr | 67 | view |
| 2020-01-13 | manhstorm | 56 | view |
| 2020-01-13 | manhstorm | 56 | view |
| 2020-01-02 | happyhappy | 61 | view |
- Some people believe that it is good to share as much information as possible in scientific research, business and the academic world. Others believe that some information is too important or too valuable to be shared freely. 73
- The chart shows the number of mobile phones and landlines per 100 people in selected countries. 56
- Global warming is one of the most serious issues that the world is facing today. What are the causes of global warming and what measures can governments and individuals take to tackle the issue? 67
- The line graph below shows the percentage of tourists to England who visited four different attractions in Brighton. 67
- The internet has transformed the way information is shared and consumed, but it has also created problems that did not exist before. What are the most serious problems associated with the internet and what solutions can you suggest? 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, similarly, so, in contrast, 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 : 10.0 6.8 147% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 1.0 5.60731707317 18% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 33.7804878049 104% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 3.97073170732 227% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 978.0 965.302439024 101% => OK
No of words: 194.0 196.424390244 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0412371134 4.92477711251 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.73207559907 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80463533841 2.65546596893 106% => OK
Unique words: 98.0 106.607317073 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.505154639175 0.547539520022 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 257.4 283.868780488 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.33902439024 161% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 0.482926829268 1035% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 3.36585365854 178% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.4926829268 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 26.1342686907 43.030603864 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.25 112.824112599 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.25 22.9334400587 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.125 5.23603664747 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
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: 0.258183916987 0.215688989381 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.13349107291 0.103423049105 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.112140960385 0.0843802449381 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.196902359237 0.15604864568 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.127806688275 0.0819641961636 156% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.2329268293 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 72.5 61.2550243902 118% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 10.3012195122 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 11.4140731707 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.19 8.06136585366 89% => OK
difficult_words: 29.0 40.7170731707 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.4329268293 114% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.9970731707 105% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.0658536585 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.