The chart below shows how frequently people in the USA ate in fast-food restaurants between 2003 and 2013.
The bar chart illustrates how often people in the USA went to fast food restaurants in three different years, 2003, 2006, and 2013.
In general, it can be assumed that 2006 was the year American people had the unhealthiest diets. However, in 2013, most people made a significant cutting down on junk food.
Looking at the details, in 2003, around 4% of citizens had junk food daily. This figure is slightly bigger than roughly 3% in the other two years. The proportion of people who went for fast food is the highest in 2006 at one-fifth. It is followed by approximately 17% and 16% in 2003 and 2013 in turn. The same ratio of 3 different years also reflects the percentages of once a week as well.
Since 2013, Americans ate fast food less frequently than ever before. For instance, nearly one-third and 15% of the population did it once or twice a month, and only a few times a year respectively. In addition, almost 5% of residents never went to fast food stalls in 2013, the same as in 2006.
- The bar chart illustrates five different industries percentage share of Brazil s economy in 2009 and 2019 with a forecast for 2029 84
- Wild animals have no place in the 21st century so protecting them is a waste of resources To what extent do you agree or disagree 78
- In many countries people are living in a throwaway society where things are used for a short time and thrown away What are the causes of this and what problems does it lead to 84
- The graph shows data about the average Saturday sales of two bakeries in London in 2010 78
- Nowadays the way many people interact with each other has changed because of technology In what ways has technology affected the types of relationships that people make Has this been a positive or negative development 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...significant cutting down on junk food. Looking at the details, in 2003, around ...
^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... stalls in 2013, the same as in 2006.
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, look, so, third, well, for instance, in addition, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 7.0 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 33.7804878049 83% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 3.97073170732 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 835.0 965.302439024 87% => OK
No of words: 181.0 196.424390244 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.61325966851 4.92477711251 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.66791821706 3.73543355544 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5718573266 2.65546596893 97% => OK
Unique words: 115.0 106.607317073 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.635359116022 0.547539520022 116% => OK
syllable_count: 232.2 283.868780488 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.482926829268 414% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 3.36585365854 178% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 8.94146341463 123% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.4926829268 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 21.2350092968 43.030603864 49% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 75.9090909091 112.824112599 67% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4545454545 22.9334400587 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.18181818182 5.23603664747 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 1.69756097561 118% => 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: 8.0 4.09268292683 195% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.344417873624 0.215688989381 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121659756468 0.103423049105 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.119589137812 0.0843802449381 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.221574979601 0.15604864568 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.115075612242 0.0819641961636 140% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.5 13.2329268293 64% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 80.62 61.2550243902 132% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.0 10.3012195122 58% => Flesch kincaid grade is low.
coleman_liau_index: 9.16 11.4140731707 80% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.22 8.06136585366 90% => OK
difficult_words: 32.0 40.7170731707 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 11.4329268293 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.9970731707 76% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => 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.