The graph below shows the consumption of fish and some different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004.
The line chart provided illustrates how many grams of four different type of meats ware consumed by people in Europe nation per week from 1979 to 2004. Overall, it is evident that the consuming of chicken saw an increase during the period, meanwhile three other kind of meats (beef, lamb, and fish) experienced downward trend.
Generally, the type of meat which was unpopular in initial year was chicken. It stood at around 140 in 1979. Compare to other number of meat consumption (beef and lamb) at the same year, the number of chicken consumption was much smaller. However, the figure increased steadily in a decade and surpassed the number of eaten-beef in 1998 (approximately 210). Afterward, the trend fluctuated before it reached the highest figure at around 260, and ending the period with 250 grams.
Even though beef started the period as the highest number of eaten-meat (approximately 220). The figure witnessed fluctuation during 1979 and 1984. In the next three years (1985 – 1987) beef consumption was flat at around 235 grams. Following that, the consumption of beef decreased dramatically to about 100 grams at the end of reported year. Furthermore, lamb consumption stood at 150 gram in 1979 and declined twofold at the end of the reported year. Meanwhile the number of fish consumption was slightly change during the period.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 263, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'kind' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'kinds'.
Suggestion: kinds
...uring the period, meanwhile three other kind of meats beef, lamb, and fish experienc...
^^^^
Line 5, column 384, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'gram' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'grams'.
Suggestion: grams
...thermore, lamb consumption stood at 150 gram in 1979 and declined twofold at the end...
^^^^
Line 5, column 451, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Meanwhile,
...wofold at the end of the reported year. Meanwhile the number of fish consumption was slig...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 505, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'changed'.
Suggestion: changed
...number of fish consumption was slightly change during the period.
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, however, if, while, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 7.0 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 33.7804878049 121% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 3.97073170732 176% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1119.0 965.302439024 116% => OK
No of words: 222.0 196.424390244 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04054054054 4.92477711251 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.8600083453 3.73543355544 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67200661471 2.65546596893 101% => OK
Unique words: 127.0 106.607317073 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.572072072072 0.547539520022 104% => OK
syllable_count: 314.1 283.868780488 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.33902439024 161% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.482926829268 414% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 3.36585365854 30% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 8.94146341463 145% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.4926829268 76% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.8063861194 43.030603864 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.0769230769 112.824112599 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0769230769 22.9334400587 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.07692307692 5.23603664747 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 1.69756097561 236% => Less language errors wanted.
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: 0.155609876079 0.215688989381 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0607987161547 0.103423049105 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0383869955193 0.0843802449381 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119223014112 0.15604864568 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0370793599998 0.0819641961636 45% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 13.2329268293 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 71.14 61.2550243902 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 10.3012195122 74% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 11.4140731707 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.82 8.06136585366 97% => OK
difficult_words: 47.0 40.7170731707 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.4329268293 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.9970731707 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => OK
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.