As in the above paragraph, the two-income family has a predilection toward the sea food. Also, it inform that the two-income family likely to have restaurant meal than the meal cooked in home. The writer elucidate that there is 30% increase in the number of sea food dishes in last five year at the city restaurant; which refers as if there were previously 10 dishes then now it is 13 after increase. The writer lacks the information regarding the percent increase in the dishes of other type of restaurant except sea food. In addition, there is some sort of lacking information regarding the topic; must be clearly registered before claiming any conclusion.
The study has be carried out in the national level and the changes is done considering the particular place which might not be meaningful. Although the survey includes a lot of people has voracious appetite towards sea food; there might be some group of people who strongly hate sea food. This must be clearly justified before taking any conclusion. The study is taken in a duration of 5 years and there is only increase in 30% of the dishes. There might be some other dishes except sea food which has higher increase rate. Thus, the study of different meal should be done clearly.
In addition, the writer states that there are no any currently operating restaurant in the area. This might be shocking anomalies. There must be some restaurant before 5 or 7 years ago and why it has stopped? This need to be examine and the recipe of the to-income family must be studied properly. What type of seafood do they really prefer.
It is shown that the family has strong appetite of healthy food. Thus, the food prepared in the restaurant must be of hygienic. The sea food with lots of butter and smoked is not considered to be the healthy meal. This contains lots of cholesterol and fats. The healthy food refers to the one which is cooked in a flame containing low cholesterol, and fat.
Overall, while the conclusion may be correct in some ways, certain particular proofs should be proclaimed to adequately assess the argument. In such instances, the conclusion, as well as the entire argument, maybe more logical and persuasive.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 378 350
No. of Characters: 1765 1500
No. of Different Words: 175 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.409 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.669 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.519 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 123 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 81 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 62 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.435 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.125 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.435 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.295 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.295 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.065 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 99, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'informs'?
Suggestion: informs
...dilection toward the sea food. Also, it inform that the two-income family likely to ha...
^^^^^^
Line 1, column 205, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'elucidates'.
Suggestion: elucidates
...han the meal cooked in home. The writer elucidate that there is 30% increase in the numbe...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 15, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...claiming any conclusion. The study has be carried out in the national level and t...
^^
Line 3, column 47, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...ition, the writer states that there are no any currently operating restaurant in t...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, may, really, regarding, so, then, thus, well, while, in addition, in particular, sort of, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1815.0 2260.96107784 80% => OK
No of words: 378.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.80158730159 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40933352052 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.607420345 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.478835978836 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 566.1 705.55239521 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.7786408095 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 78.9130434783 119.503703932 66% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4347826087 23.324526521 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.130655638175 0.218282227539 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0439747117311 0.0743258471296 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0561701940281 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0730836573263 0.128457276422 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0585203570627 0.0628817314937 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.4 14.3799401198 65% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 48.3550499002 132% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 12.197005988 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.26 12.5979740519 81% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.56 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.