the line graph below shows the consumption of four kinds of meat in a European Country from 1979 to 2004.
The line graph compares the various types of meat, namely chicken, beef, lamb and fish consumed per week in a European country between 1979 and 2004.
Overall, it can be seen that, beef and lamb followed a fairly similar patterns. Both followed a downward trend, however, chicken consumption showed an upward trend. Although chicken initially had a lower rate of consumption as compared to beef and lamb, it exceeded the rest at the end of the period. Fish, on the other hand, had almost no change in its intake.
During the start of the period, the grams of beef consumed per week stood at a little above 200, being the highest of that year, followed by lamb and chicken consumption, which was around 60 grams less than that. in contrast to this, fish remained the least, at a little above 50. Chicken consumption followed a gradual growth throughout. However, beef consumption, despite some fluctuations, saw a steady decline. Subsequently, after 1989, the rising rate of chicken consumption outnumbered it.
Consumption of beef finished a period with a low rate of around 100 grams per person per week. However, chicken became most preferred form of meat by the year 2004 and accounted for a weekly consumption of over 250 grams by the end of the timeframe. while lamb and fish remained the least opted ones.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 214, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: In
...ich was around 60 grams less than that. in contrast to this, fish remained the lea...
^^
Line 7, column 251, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: While
... 250 grams by the end of the timeframe. while lamb and fish remained the least opted ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, so, while, in contrast, in contrast to, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 7.0 43% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 8.0 5.60731707317 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 35.0 33.7804878049 104% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 3.97073170732 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1097.0 965.302439024 114% => OK
No of words: 224.0 196.424390244 114% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89732142857 4.92477711251 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86867284054 3.73543355544 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61650944042 2.65546596893 99% => OK
Unique words: 133.0 106.607317073 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.59375 0.547539520022 108% => OK
syllable_count: 311.4 283.868780488 110% => 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: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.07073170732 280% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 3.36585365854 178% => OK
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: 46.310631136 43.030603864 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 84.3846153846 112.824112599 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2307692308 22.9334400587 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.07692307692 5.23603664747 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 1.69756097561 118% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 1.13902439024 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.09268292683 220% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.141993793758 0.215688989381 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0514897070987 0.103423049105 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.077598179903 0.0843802449381 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117610022371 0.15604864568 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.102173628003 0.0819641961636 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.3 13.2329268293 78% => 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: 10.84 11.4140731707 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.86 8.06136585366 98% => OK
difficult_words: 48.0 40.7170731707 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.4329268293 66% => 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.