The chart illustrates consumption of three kinds of fast food by teenagers in Mauritius from 1985 to 2015.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main feature, and make comparison where relevant.
The line chart reveals changes in the adolescents’ expenditure of three different kinds of fast food in Mauritius during a 30-year-period. Overall, the figure for Fried Chicken and Hamburgers witnessed an upward trend while that for Pizza experienced a downward trend over the year surveyed.
It can be seen that Pizza was by far the most used of fast food, taking the first position at 60 times in the first year. However, this usage fell significantly to a low of only 10 times in the last year. By contrast, the number of times that Mauritian teenagers spend on Fired Chicken started at the lowest figure, at just approximately 5 times in 1985. There was a fluctuation in the figure for Fried Chicken after reaching its highest value at roughly 62 times in 2015. A similar pattern can be seen in the category of Hamburgers, accounting for only 10 times in the beginning then witnessing the highest point at 70 times in the end.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-26 | ililmaidatuz | 73 | view |
| 2023-03-11 | Giang Tran | 78 | view |
| 2023-03-03 | Anh15799 | 78 | view |
| 2023-03-03 | Anh15799 | 56 | view |
| 2023-02-19 | Giang Tran | 73 | view |
- The flowchart below shows the process involved in writing formal academic essay for particular university course Describe the stages of the process in a reporter a university lecturer You should write at least 150 words Syerapke 72
- Some people believe that nowadays we have too many choices To what extent do you agree or disagree to this statement 78
- The chart shows the percentage of Australian men and women doing regular physical activity in 2010 73
- The chart shows the percentage of Australian men and women doing regular physical activity in 2010 78
- The table compares the percentage of mobile phone owners using their phone features from 2006 to 2010 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, then, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 7.0 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 1.00243902439 200% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 6.8 15% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 33.7804878049 83% => 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: 775.0 965.302439024 80% => OK
No of words: 163.0 196.424390244 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.75460122699 4.92477711251 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.57311423478 3.73543355544 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80557989687 2.65546596893 106% => OK
Unique words: 99.0 106.607317073 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.60736196319 0.547539520022 111% => OK
syllable_count: 229.5 283.868780488 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 3.36585365854 59% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 7.0 8.94146341463 78% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 25.6984077963 43.030603864 60% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 110.714285714 112.824112599 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2857142857 22.9334400587 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.42857142857 5.23603664747 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 2.0 3.83414634146 52% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 3.70975609756 27% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 1.13902439024 176% => OK
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: 0.0871441835865 0.215688989381 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0457933785949 0.103423049105 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0635446753491 0.0843802449381 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0787638991692 0.15604864568 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0341118880171 0.0819641961636 42% => 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: 12.6 13.2329268293 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 61.2550243902 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.3012195122 96% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.57 11.4140731707 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.06136585366 104% => OK
difficult_words: 37.0 40.7170731707 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.