The pie charts and table give information about the total value and sources of fish imported to the US between 1988 and 2000.
The table reveals data about the proportion of expenditure on fish importation in the United States, and the three pie charts demonstrate the percentage of fish from different countries.
Looking from an overall perspective, it is obvious that there was an upward trajectory in the total value of fish imported. In addition, the quantity of fish bought from Canada decreased over the period, whereas these figures for the other two categories showed a reversed trend.
Regarding the table, in 1988, the US spent 6.57 billion dollars on buying fish from other nations. It underwent a sharp increase to 8.52 billion dollars over the next four years. Having followed this trend, a growth of more than 2 billion dollars was recorded in 2000.
Canada started with the highest fraction at 60% in terms of the pie charts, which was followed distantly by other countries and China, at 27% and 13%, respectively. However, during the period, the percentage of Canada dropped considerably to just 28% and became the lowest in 2000. The figure for China, in contrast, rose over twofold to 30% after 12 years. The rest of the world’s number saw fluctuation, after peaking at 46% in 1992, it witnessed a slight fall by 4% in the final year.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-10-21 | minh2012 | 73 | view |
| 2022-09-08 | nurullaili69 | 67 | view |
| 2022-09-07 | nurullaili69 | 67 | view |
| 2022-07-30 | dddd | 67 | view |
| 2022-07-30 | dddd | view |
- The pie charts below show the average household expenditure in Japan and Malaysia in the year 2010 89
- The diagram below shows how instant noodles are manufactured 100
- Maintaining public libraries is a waste of money since computer technology can replace their functions To what extent you agree or disagree 89
- The graph below presents the employment patterns in the USA between 1930 and 2010 Summarise the information by selecting and report in the main features and make comparisons where relevant Write at least 150 words 78
- The graph below shows consumers average annual expenditure on cell phone national and international fixed line and services in America between 2001 and 2010 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 488, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... a slight fall by 4% in the final year.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, look, regarding, whereas, in addition, in contrast
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: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 6.8 59% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 7.0 5.60731707317 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 33.7804878049 121% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 3.97073170732 126% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1029.0 965.302439024 107% => OK
No of words: 208.0 196.424390244 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94711538462 4.92477711251 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.79765784423 3.73543355544 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61767698604 2.65546596893 99% => OK
Unique words: 130.0 106.607317073 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.625 0.547539520022 114% => OK
syllable_count: 293.4 283.868780488 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.33902439024 138% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 3.36585365854 208% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.4926829268 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.3082635222 43.030603864 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.9 112.824112599 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8 22.9334400587 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.3 5.23603664747 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 3.70975609756 162% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
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: 0.185992459905 0.215688989381 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.061841590056 0.103423049105 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0749280561726 0.0843802449381 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114677202448 0.15604864568 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0819482015877 0.0819641961636 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.2329268293 93% => 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: 11.43 11.4140731707 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.06136585366 107% => OK
difficult_words: 53.0 40.7170731707 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.9970731707 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.