The presented line graph illustrates the amount of fish, beef, lamb and chicken eaten by European people from 1979 to 2004.
Overall, while the consumption of fish was quite steady, those of the others had a significant fluctuation over this period. Regarding to the comparison, beginning as the meat consumed the most in 1979, beef’s figure noticeably fell, whereas that of chicken grew, becoming the most popular meat around the region in 2004.
Turning to the detail, a small decline in the amount of fish consumed has been detected in the first 5 years, starting from about 60 grams per person per week in 1979 to about 50 grams per person per week in 1984. The figure experienced 15 years of stability before decreased mildly in 1999, then remained constant by the year 2004.
By contrast, from the high starting points of 220 grams and 150 grams per person per week respectively in 1979, the consumption of beef and lamb spent many years oscillating. However, in general, both of them had a downward trend up to 2004, unlike chicken, the consumption of which significantly increase from the starting point of below 150 grams per person per week to approximately 250 grams per person per week in 2004.
- Some people think governments should spend money on faster means of transport. However, others think money should be spent on other priorities (e.g: environment, cost). Discuss both views and give your opinion. 89
- the best way to resolve the international environmental problems is to increase the cost of fuel. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 89
- The range of technology available to people is increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. Others think it has an opposite effect. Discuss both views and give your opinions. 89
- The pie charts below show the average household expenditures in Japan and Malaysia in the year 2010.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 11
- The graph shows the information about the international conferences in three capital cities in 1980 – 2010.Summarise the main character and make comparison where relevant. 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, regarding, so, then, whereas, while, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 2.0 7.0 29% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 6.8 44% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 4.0 5.60731707317 71% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 33.7804878049 124% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 3.97073170732 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1014.0 965.302439024 105% => OK
No of words: 207.0 196.424390244 105% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89855072464 4.92477711251 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.79308509922 3.73543355544 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62810812581 2.65546596893 99% => OK
Unique words: 114.0 106.607317073 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550724637681 0.547539520022 101% => OK
syllable_count: 277.2 283.868780488 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK
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: 29.0 22.4926829268 129% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 47.921704852 43.030603864 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.857142857 112.824112599 128% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.5714285714 22.9334400587 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.57142857143 5.23603664747 183% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.123499202731 0.215688989381 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0690829425367 0.103423049105 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0438719161179 0.0843802449381 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0955293840972 0.15604864568 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0468876621113 0.0819641961636 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 13.2329268293 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 67.42 61.2550243902 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.3012195122 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 11.4140731707 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.13 8.06136585366 101% => OK
difficult_words: 40.0 40.7170731707 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.4329268293 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.9970731707 124% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.0658536585 127% => 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.