The charts below show the percentage of their food budget the average family spent on
restaurant meals in different years. The graph shows the number of meals eaten in fast
food restaurants and sit-down restaurants.
The chart depicts the percentage of the food budget of the average family spent on restaurant meals across different years. This further illustrates the number of times they eat in fast-food restaurants and sit down restaurants.
The first chart compares the percentage of food budget spent on restaurants and homes. In 1970, the home cooking was at its highest at about 90%. Then 10 years later, there was a rise of only 5% in the restaurant budget. From 1980 to 1990, the sudden jump of the restaurant budget was noteworthy about 20%. Then in 2000, home-cooked meals have dipped to 50% from 65%.
We can see that the second graph shows the percentage of fast food and sitdown restaurant's number of meals. From 1970 to 1980, both increased in terms of the number of meals per year but sitdown meals got the upper hand. But from 1980 to 2000, the scenario was different. Fastfood continued to increase at a steep curve whereas the increase in sitdown restaurants increased at a slower rate than the previous year.
The first chart helps us to see that the continuous increase in restaurant meals ending at 50% in 2000. And the second graph helps us to notice the fast growth of fast food meals than that of sitdown meals.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-07-14 | sharad patel | 73 | view |
| 2021-06-30 | sharad patel | 87 | view |
| 2020-02-24 | pavel | 63 | view |
| 2017-12-19 | Mela Nguyen | 83 | view |
| 2014-11-28 | nika95 | 92 | view |
- The charts below show the percentage of their food budget the average family spent on restaurant meals in different years The graph shows the number of meals eaten in fast food restaurants and sit down restaurants 63
- The charts below show what UK graduate and postgraduate students who did not go into full time work did after leaving college in 2008 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
- The graph below shows usual water usage in millions of cubic meters by industries in some countries in a year 10
- The pie charts below show the percentage of water used for different purposes in six areas of the world Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 10
- The table below shows the sales made by a coffee shop in an office building on a typical weekday 77
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, second, then, whereas
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: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 9.0 5.60731707317 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 42.0 33.7804878049 124% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 3.97073170732 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1020.0 965.302439024 106% => OK
No of words: 215.0 196.424390244 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.74418604651 4.92477711251 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.82921379641 3.73543355544 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4604343428 2.65546596893 93% => OK
Unique words: 107.0 106.607317073 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.497674418605 0.547539520022 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 272.7 283.868780488 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.33902439024 138% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.482926829268 414% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 8.94146341463 145% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.4926829268 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 26.0122865826 43.030603864 60% => OK
Chars per sentence: 78.4615384615 112.824112599 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.5384615385 22.9334400587 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.84615384615 5.23603664747 54% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 3.70975609756 162% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.09268292683 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.481847245758 0.215688989381 223% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.181130750766 0.103423049105 175% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.142438954953 0.0843802449381 169% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.31827264558 0.15604864568 204% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.127653331228 0.0819641961636 156% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.2 13.2329268293 70% => 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: 9.92 11.4140731707 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.56 8.06136585366 81% => OK
difficult_words: 29.0 40.7170731707 71% => 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: 7.0 11.0658536585 63% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.