The graph below shows the consumption of fish and different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant.
The line graph gives the information about the usage of fish and 3 types of meat in a European nation from 1979 and 2004.
It is clear that Chicken consumption increased over the period of 25 years, while those of fish and other kinds of meat decreased at different levels. In addition, Chicken was eaten the most in 2004, although its figure was the second lowest in 1979, which was even slightly lower than that of Lamb.
In 1979, nearly 220 grams of beef was consumed per week, which was the highest consumption in that year. However, the figure for beef eaten in this European country fell considerably by half in 2004. In that same note, there was a significant loss in the amount of Lamb used from 150 grams to 60 grams per week during the period shown.
On the other hand, this European country witnessed a rapid rise to 250 grams in the weekly consumption of Chicken between 1979 and 2004. By contrast, the figure for fish consumed fluctuated and hit a low of 40 grams at the end of the period shown.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-05-05 | Ahmad_off | 78 | view |
| 2024-05-05 | Ahmad_off | 78 | view |
| 2023-05-29 | baoquyen1906 | 56 | view |
| 2023-05-27 | baoquyen1906 | 73 | view |
| 2023-05-27 | baoquyen1906 | 73 | view |
- Some people believe that unpaid community service should be a compulsory part of high school programs To what extent do you agree or disagree 73
- Many young people who leave school hold a negative attitude towards learning Why does this happen What are the solutions 84
- The graph below shows the consumption of fish and different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
- The table below gives information on visitor statistics for 1996 1998 and 2000 for various World Heritage sites in Australia 80
- The line graph gives data about the number of users of five different communication services worldwide from 1998 to 2008 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, second, while, in addition, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 7.0 100% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 3.15609756098 190% => OK
Pronoun: 9.0 5.60731707317 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 35.0 33.7804878049 104% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 3.97073170732 126% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 835.0 965.302439024 87% => OK
No of words: 185.0 196.424390244 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.51351351351 4.92477711251 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.68801715136 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.29633684215 2.65546596893 86% => OK
Unique words: 101.0 106.607317073 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.545945945946 0.547539520022 100% => OK
syllable_count: 232.2 283.868780488 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 19.4213156094 43.030603864 45% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 104.375 112.824112599 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.125 22.9334400587 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.25 5.23603664747 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 1.13902439024 263% => Less 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: 0.208031480055 0.215688989381 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100671326124 0.103423049105 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0800557292382 0.0843802449381 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148049731774 0.15604864568 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0634892180035 0.0819641961636 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 13.2329268293 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 73.51 61.2550243902 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 10.3012195122 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.17 11.4140731707 80% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.08 8.06136585366 88% => OK
difficult_words: 27.0 40.7170731707 66% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.4329268293 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.