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 features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The given line graph compares three kinds of fast food in term of times eaten per years by adolescent in Mauritius between 1985 and 2015.
What stands out from the line graph is that while Pizza declined, others fast food had an upward trend. In addition, Hamburgers was the most steadily increased during the period shown.
Starting at 1985 with 60, Pizza was the highest point, following by Hamburgers with 10 times eaten. Fried Chicken just had roughly 6 at the same year before witnessed a leap considerably in 1995 with 20. Similarly, there was a significant surge in the times of Hamburgers with about 28, while Pizza declined to roughly less than 50.
Besides, Fried Chicken surpassed Hamburger and Pizza to become the highest by 60 in 2005 before slightly rising to about more than 60 at the end of the period. Hamburger still ranked second in 2005 but it experienced a substantial bounce during the period, at roughly 71. In contrast, Pizza tumbled over the same time to just 10.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-02-12 | Giang Tran | 78 | view |
| 2023-02-12 | Giang Tran | 78 | view |
- The charts show the main methods of transport of people travelling to one university in 2004 and 2009 Summarise the information be selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 61
- Pop stars earn much more than classical music performers Discuss both views and give your opinion 84
- The maps show how the industrial area will change into a housing area in the future 73
- The graph below gives information from a 2008 report about consumption of energy in the USA since 1980 with projections until 2030 81
- The table and chart below show the domestic water use and cost in 5 countries 67
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, if, second, similarly, still, while, 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 : 3.0 6.8 44% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 2.0 5.60731707317 36% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 33.7804878049 110% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 3.97073170732 25% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 826.0 965.302439024 86% => OK
No of words: 172.0 196.424390244 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.8023255814 4.92477711251 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.62144681703 3.73543355544 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43245697686 2.65546596893 92% => OK
Unique words: 106.0 106.607317073 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.616279069767 0.547539520022 113% => OK
syllable_count: 233.1 283.868780488 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.4926829268 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.6050155319 43.030603864 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.7777777778 112.824112599 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1111111111 22.9334400587 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.33333333333 5.23603664747 159% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 3.70975609756 81% => 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: 0.0810383431275 0.215688989381 38% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0367384639837 0.103423049105 36% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0690252657822 0.0843802449381 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0745035857975 0.15604864568 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0856027390706 0.0819641961636 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 13.2329268293 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 61.2550243902 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 10.3012195122 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.56 11.4140731707 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.61 8.06136585366 94% => OK
difficult_words: 33.0 40.7170731707 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.4329268293 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.9970731707 87% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => 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.