The following bar chart illustrates how often people went to fast-food restaurants in the USA in the 3 years (2003, 2006 and 2013).
Overall, even though the proportion of people having their meals at fast-food restaurants only once per week was the most significant between 2003 and 2006, it was replaced by a group representing people who ate there either one or two times a month in 2013. Furthermore, the lowest percentage was reached by people eating there on a daily basis.
First of all, in the start of the period, people having fast food once a week stood at just over 30% and rose to around 33% in 2006, after which it experienced a drop to approximately 5% in 2013. In contrast, the group comprised of people who went to restaurants once or twice a month witnessed a decline of 10% between 2003 and 2006. Following this, it surpassed people eating fast food every week by rising to roughly speaking 33% in the final year of the period.
Regarding the lowest percentages, people consuming fast food at restaurants every day remained below 5% throughout the period given. Similarly, the second least serious percentages were reached by people who have never been to fast food restaurants over a 10 year period. Initially, it settled at 10% in 2003 and dwindled slightly over the following years.
- In a number of countries some people think it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities Others believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport Disucss both thes 67
- The chart below shows how frequently people in the USA ate in fast food restaurants between 2003 and 2013 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relavant 56
- The chart below shows how frequently people in the USA ate in fast food restaurants between 2003 and 2013 61
- The chart below shows how frequently people in the USA ate in fast food restaurants between 2003 and 2013 61
- IELTS 6 Test 2 Writing Task 2 Academic Successful sports professionals can earn a great deal more money than people in other important professions Some people think this is fully justified while others think it is unfair Discuss both of these views and gi 56
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 214, Rule ID: ENTIRELY_COMPRISED_OF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'group composed of'?
Suggestion: group composed of
...roximately 5% in 2013. In contrast, the group comprised of people who went to restaurants once or ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, if, regarding, second, similarly, in contrast, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 7.0 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 33.7804878049 118% => 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: 1087.0 965.302439024 113% => OK
No of words: 225.0 196.424390244 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.83111111111 4.92477711251 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.87298334621 3.73543355544 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69393465968 2.65546596893 101% => OK
Unique words: 121.0 106.607317073 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.537777777778 0.547539520022 98% => OK
syllable_count: 308.7 283.868780488 109% => 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: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.4926829268 111% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.6405878303 43.030603864 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.777777778 112.824112599 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 22.9334400587 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.77777777778 5.23603664747 168% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 1.13902439024 263% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.2593332062 0.215688989381 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121151579288 0.103423049105 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0777247127097 0.0843802449381 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192375283265 0.15604864568 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0640857357996 0.0819641961636 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.2329268293 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 63.02 61.2550243902 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.3012195122 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.03 11.4140731707 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.89 8.06136585366 98% => OK
difficult_words: 43.0 40.7170731707 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.4329268293 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.9970731707 109% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.0658536585 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.