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.

Essay topics:

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 multi-lines graph shows the data of fish and some different kinds of meat - such as chicken, beef and lamb - consumption in European country. The number of grams are used to explain the amount of consumption. The graph depends on the data between 1979 to 2004.

During the twenty five years, the graph showed the increasing number of chicken consumption in European country from 140 gram in 1979 to 250 grams. It was totally a tremendous climb. On the other hand, there were some tremendous declines in beef and lamb consumption in the same duration. The consumption of beef and lamb declined significantly. The consumption of beef decreased from 220 grams to 110 grams, and the consumption of lamb dropped from 150 grams to 60 grams. There was also the slight decline in the consumption of fish, but the change was still stabil.

In sum up, we can see that the higher consumption in European country was hold by meat - under arrangement: chicken, beef and lamb, than followed by the consumption of fish. The main features showed that the consumption of chicken in European country will still increase depend the trend of the 1979 and 2004 data.

Votes
Average: 6 (2 votes)

Comments

in European country
in a European country

from 140 gram in 1979 to 250 grams.
from 140 gram in 1979 to 250 grams in 2005.

will still increase depend the trend of the 1979 and 2004 data.
will still increase depending the trend of the 1979 and 2004 data.

Sentence: There was also the slight decline in the consumption of fish, but the change was still stabil.
Error: stabil Suggestion: stable

flaws:
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2

Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 5.5 out of 9
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 11 10
No. of Words: 197 200
No. of Characters: 925 1000
No. of Different Words: 94 100
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.746 4.0
Average Word Length: 4.695 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.596 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 55 60
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 43 50
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 29 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 19 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.909 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.597 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.364 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.445 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.577 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.191 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 3 4