The bar chart below shows US seafood imports for 1986, 1996, and 2016, and the forecast for 2026. The pie chart shows the geographical structure of these imports in 2016.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant.
Write more than 150 words.
The graph shows the amount of seafood imports in the US for 1986,1996 and 2016 along with the predictions of imports for 2026. It also gives information about the geographical structure of seafood imports for the year 2016.
It can be observed from the above graphs that US seafood imports thoroughly increased for 3 decades from 1860 to 2016. However, opposing this trend, there is a prediction that these imports will decrease for the year 2026. It can also be observed from the figures that, two major countries played a vital role in US seafood imports for the year 2016.
In the year 1986, US seafood imports were approximately 7 billion dollars and in 1996 this number increased to approximately 10 billion. And in the year 2016 US seafood imports doubled from the year 1996. As a forecast for 2026, this number is decreased to around 17 billion dollars which can be considered an anomaly from the past 3 decades.
For the year 2016, China had imported 28% of overall seafood imports of the US. While Thailand contributing 23%, Canada was importing 16% of US seafood imports. Indonesia and Vietnam imported 11% and 8% respectively for the year 2016. However, other countries had a very less significant amount on overall imports of the US in 2016.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-11-01 | bangtaenie_77 | 84 | view |
| 2021-02-08 | Chinna123 | 79 | view |
- In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports swimming boating and fishing among their favorite recreational activities The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits however and the city park department devotes little of i 60
- The bar chart below shows US seafood imports for 1986 1996 and 2016 and the forecast for 2026 The pie chart shows the geographical structure of these imports in 2016 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make compariso 79
- Over the past year our late night news program has devoted increasingly more time to covering national news and less time to covering weather and local news During the same time period most of the complaints we received from viewers were concerned with th 55
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 50
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve the problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 50
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, so, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 7.0 100% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 1.00243902439 399% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 5.60731707317 321% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 27.0 33.7804878049 80% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 3.97073170732 50% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1047.0 965.302439024 108% => OK
No of words: 216.0 196.424390244 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84722222222 4.92477711251 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.83365862548 3.73543355544 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62080794017 2.65546596893 99% => OK
Unique words: 108.0 106.607317073 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.547539520022 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 289.8 283.868780488 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 1.53170731707 326% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 3.36585365854 30% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 8.94146341463 134% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.4926829268 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 24.0836216822 43.030603864 56% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 87.25 112.824112599 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 22.9334400587 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.75 5.23603664747 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 3.70975609756 162% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.409501151732 0.215688989381 190% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.20220275989 0.103423049105 196% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100507933655 0.0843802449381 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.307693034791 0.15604864568 197% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.117644556567 0.0819641961636 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.4 13.2329268293 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 78.59 61.2550243902 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.8 10.3012195122 66% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.55 11.4140731707 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.6 8.06136585366 94% => OK
difficult_words: 42.0 40.7170731707 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.4329268293 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.9970731707 84% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => 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.