The graph below shows the consumption of fish and some different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004.
The graph represents the fish usage and compares several of flesh in european country in 1979 until 2004.
Overall, every categories of meal have a fluctuation by own progress in distinct years. Chicken was being the most higher of consumption until the end of the year, whereas beef continue decreased and not stable.
In 1979, beef was became the biggest types than another categories for comsuption meal, people can eat around 200-250 grams of meal in every week at that time, while at the end of year in 2004 inhabitans only consuming beef around 100 and 150, this number was proved that buff of beef in every years was declined. Moreover, in terms of chicken was supposed to beef, in the first year total of people consume chicken only almost 150 and this position downward of beef, in 2004, range of person enthusiast in chicken was increased steadily and able to generating percentage around 250 and 300. Fans of chicken have a significant rise and became the higher data in 2004.
In terms of fish, have a different than another categories. In the first year (1979) until the end of year (2004) total of person consume this product was very stable and always constant in number of 50 per gram. While, Lamb not the same with fish, in the 1979 people can consume lamb 150 gram per week, however in 2004 that total was degenerated constantly and only produce around 50 and 100.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 110, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[1]
Message: Use only 'higher' (without 'most') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: higher
...n distinct years. Chicken was being the most higher of consumption until the end of the yea...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 36, Rule ID: RATHER_THEN[2]
Message: Did you mean 'different 'from''? 'Different than' is often considered colloquial style.
Suggestion: from
...04. In terms of fish, have a different than another categories. In the first year 1...
^^^^
Line 4, column 174, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: constant
...this product was very stable and always constant in number of 50 per gram. While, Lamb not the sam...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 285, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'gram' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'grams'.
Suggestion: grams
...in the 1979 people can consume lamb 150 gram per week, however in 2004 that total wa...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, moreover, so, thus, whereas, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 7.0 129% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 1.00243902439 200% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 6.8 147% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 33.7804878049 136% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 3.97073170732 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1139.0 965.302439024 118% => OK
No of words: 243.0 196.424390244 124% => OK
Chars per words: 4.68724279835 4.92477711251 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94822203886 3.73543355544 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.32390442182 2.65546596893 88% => OK
Unique words: 124.0 106.607317073 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.510288065844 0.547539520022 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 330.3 283.868780488 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 3.36585365854 208% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.4926829268 120% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 84.4583321913 43.030603864 196% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.555555556 112.824112599 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.0 22.9334400587 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.23603664747 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 1.69756097561 236% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 3.70975609756 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => 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: 0.134546313901 0.215688989381 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0781685368517 0.103423049105 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0860614015577 0.0843802449381 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124211952015 0.15604864568 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.109774854846 0.0819641961636 134% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.2329268293 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 60.99 61.2550243902 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.3012195122 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.22 11.4140731707 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.77 8.06136585366 96% => OK
difficult_words: 43.0 40.7170731707 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.4329268293 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.9970731707 116% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.0658536585 127% => 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.