The graph below shows the consumption of fish and different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004
The given line graph gives information about the weekly consumption of fish and meat in a nation in Europe over a period of 25 years starting from 1979 to 2004.
Overall, as can be seen from the line graph, while an upward trend was seen in the quantity of chicken consumed, the opposite was true for the figure for beef, lamb, and fish. In addition, fish was the food that was eaten least weekly over the given period.
In 1979, the amount of beef consumed per week was the highest, at roughly 220 grams, while the figure for fish was significantly lower, at about 65 grams. At the same time, 150 grams and 140 grams of lamb and chicken were eaten weekly by the Euporean population respectively.
In 2004, the amount of chicken consumed weekly in this European nation rose dramatically by 100 grams to approximately 240 grams and became the highest figure in the chart. Additionally, there was a significant decline to about 110 grams in the figure for beef, while the quantity of fish eaten per week fell slightly to only 40 grams. Meanwhile, the lamb’s figure witnessed a gradual drop to about 60 grams.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-06-16 | unstoppable | 73 | view |
| 2024-06-16 | unstoppable | 73 | view |
| 2024-06-16 | unstoppable | 73 | view |
| 2024-06-16 | unstoppable | 67 | view |
| 2024-06-16 | unstoppable | 73 | view |
- The graph below shows the consumption of fish and different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004 73
- The pie charts below show the changes in annual spending by a particular UK school in 1981 and 1991 67
- The graph below shows the consumption of fish and different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004 67
- The diagram below shows the process by which bricks are manufactured for the building industry 70
- Many people believe that international tourism is a bad thing for their country What are the reasons Solutions to change negative attitudes 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, while, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 7.0 129% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 2.0 5.60731707317 36% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 33.7804878049 104% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 3.97073170732 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 921.0 965.302439024 95% => OK
No of words: 197.0 196.424390244 100% => OK
Chars per words: 4.67512690355 4.92477711251 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.74642080493 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47902900085 2.65546596893 93% => OK
Unique words: 105.0 106.607317073 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.532994923858 0.547539520022 97% => OK
syllable_count: 270.0 283.868780488 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.07073170732 374% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 3.36585365854 178% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.4926829268 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.923442618 43.030603864 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.125 112.824112599 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.625 22.9334400587 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.75 5.23603664747 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 3.70975609756 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 1.13902439024 176% => OK
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: 0.121040606062 0.215688989381 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0597729265503 0.103423049105 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0690650834995 0.0843802449381 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0973746641635 0.15604864568 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0782276140407 0.0819641961636 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.2329268293 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 64.04 61.2550243902 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.3012195122 100% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.16 11.4140731707 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.47 8.06136585366 93% => OK
difficult_words: 33.0 40.7170731707 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.4329268293 114% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.9970731707 105% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.0658536585 117% => 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.