Five Major Types of Fast Food Eaten in Melbourne (units)
2005 Present 2025
Hamburgers 40 38 51
Fried Chicken 35 37 45
Salads 5 15 41
Fried Rice 6 9 9
Noodles 6 8 9
The given table illustrates trends of popular fast food in Melbourne that concern the numbers of fast food eaten.
Overall, the numbers of Fried Chicken, Salad, and Fried Rice have risen from 2005 to now. Moreover, the accounts for these fast food expected that will have increased from now to 2025.
The number of Hamburger has slightly decreased from 2005 to the present, and it expected that it will have dramatically gone up until 2025. Moreover, the figure for noodles has slowly increased from 2005 to the present, which is expected that will have kept going up until 2025.
The account for Fried Chicken has gradually grown over the period from 2005 to the present being supposed that it will have significantly rocketed from the present to 2025. Furthermore, the figures for Salad and Noodles have been expected that these figures will have increased from 2005 to 2025. However, the figures for Salad supposed that it will have remained unchanged from the present to 2005.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-05-28 | Alex.X.Hg@5141 | 85 | view |
- Individuals can do nothing to improve the environment only governments and large companies can make a difference To what extent do you agree or disagree Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience 70
- The plans below show a student room for two people and a student room for one person at an Australian university Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 67
- Five Major Types of Fast Food Eaten in Melbourne units 2005 Present 2025 Hamburgers 40 38 51 Fried Chicken 35 37 45 Salads 5 15 41 Fried Rice 6 9 9 Noodles 6 8 9 85
- Scientific research should be carried out and controlled by governments rather than private companies Do you agree or disagree 61
- It is inevitable that traditional cultures will be lost as technology develops Technology and traditional cultures are incompatible To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view 56
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, however, if, moreover
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 7.0 43% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 1.00243902439 599% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 3.0 6.8 44% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 3.15609756098 253% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 13.0 5.60731707317 232% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 26.0 33.7804878049 77% => 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: 819.0 965.302439024 85% => OK
No of words: 165.0 196.424390244 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.96363636364 4.92477711251 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.58402463422 3.73543355544 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.32134662163 2.65546596893 87% => OK
Unique words: 73.0 106.607317073 68% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.442424242424 0.547539520022 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 232.2 283.868780488 82% => 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: 8.0 4.33902439024 184% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.482926829268 414% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 0.0 3.36585365854 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.4926829268 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 25.9699345398 43.030603864 60% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.375 112.824112599 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.625 22.9334400587 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.25 5.23603664747 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 3.70975609756 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.09268292683 73% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.231191511601 0.215688989381 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.134222777162 0.103423049105 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0566326306153 0.0843802449381 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.166969259872 0.15604864568 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0372055254332 0.0819641961636 45% => 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: 12.2 13.2329268293 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 68.1 61.2550243902 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 10.3012195122 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 11.4140731707 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.79 8.06136585366 97% => OK
difficult_words: 33.0 40.7170731707 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.4329268293 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.9970731707 91% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.