The chart illustrates the consumption of three kinds of fast food by teenagers in Mauritius from 1985 to 2015.
The line graph compares the fast food consumption by teenagers in Mauritius between 1985 to 2015.
Overall, hamburgers and fried chickens had been gaining popularity among the teenagers while pizzas, which had been the most popular in 1985, had become the least eaten foods among the three by 2005.
The frequency with which hamburgers were eaten was 10 times per year. However, the number showed a consistent upward trend over the period, reaching more than 70 times per year in 2015 as the most popular option among the three types of food. As for fried chickens, which were consumed 5 times per year in 1985, also became increasingly popular, with the number rising from 10 to more than 60 by 2016, except for a short period of standstill between 2005 to 2010.
With regards to the consumption of pizza, its popularity went down consistently, from 60 times per year to only 10 by 2015. What is worth noticing is the year around 2000, when hamburgers and fried began to overtake pizza as the more popular food options for Mauritius adolescents.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-26 | ililmaidatuz | 73 | view |
| 2023-03-11 | Giang Tran | 78 | view |
| 2023-03-03 | Anh15799 | 78 | view |
| 2023-03-03 | Anh15799 | 56 | view |
| 2023-02-19 | Giang Tran | 73 | view |
- Higher education could be funded in three ways All costs paid by government all costs paid by students or students paying all costs through a government loan What are the advantages of these choices 73
- The charts below give information about the number of train passengers and the percentage of trains running on time from 2000 to 2009 in Japan 79
- The line graph shows the percentage of different age groups of cinema visitors in a particular country 78
- The chart illustrates the consumption of three kinds of fast food by teenagers in Mauritius from 1985 to 2015 78
- The line graph below shows the production of paper wood pulp and sawn wood in the UK from 1980 to 2000 75
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, so, still, while, as for, except for
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 7.0 100% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 6.8 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 1.0 5.60731707317 18% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 33.7804878049 92% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 3.97073170732 50% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 876.0 965.302439024 91% => OK
No of words: 180.0 196.424390244 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.86666666667 4.92477711251 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.66284150148 3.73543355544 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45039679327 2.65546596893 92% => OK
Unique words: 102.0 106.607317073 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.566666666667 0.547539520022 103% => OK
syllable_count: 242.1 283.868780488 85% => 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: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => 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: 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: 25.0 22.4926829268 111% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.5807093986 43.030603864 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.142857143 112.824112599 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.7142857143 22.9334400587 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.28571428571 5.23603664747 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 3.70975609756 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.09268292683 49% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.224472863371 0.215688989381 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.127656461589 0.103423049105 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.133373713491 0.0843802449381 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.190035052181 0.15604864568 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.146146469044 0.0819641961636 178% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.2329268293 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 71.48 61.2550243902 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 10.3012195122 92% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 11.4140731707 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.86 8.06136585366 98% => OK
difficult_words: 34.0 40.7170731707 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.4329268293 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.9970731707 109% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => 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.