The table displays trends concerning the amounts of fast food consumed in Melbourne. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
Five Major Types of Fast Food Eaten in Melbourne (units)
2005 Present 2025
Hamburgers 40 38 51
Fried Chicken 35 37 45
Salads 5 15 41
Fried Rice 6 9 9
Noodles 6 8 9
You should write at least 150 words.
What follows summarises how preferences for five varieties of fast foods (salads, fried rice, fried chicken, noodles, and hamburgers) vary in Melbourne from 2005 to 2025.
Looking as a whole, hamburgers and fried chicken remain far more popular than the other (nutritionally superior) choices at all times. However, arguably surprising is the ascendancy of salads, which, originally the least consumed, gain increasing favour, and, if predictions prove correct, are destined to eventually rival* their carbohydrate heavy counterparts. Finally, all varieties make market inroads, a trend also forecasted for the future.
Considering the two stereotypically Western foods, hamburgers remain the perennial* favourite, being 40 (undisclosed* units) in 2005, slightly lower now, but expected to rise to an all-time high of 51 by 2025, six above fried chicken. This oily alternative does, however, have its fans, whose collective consumption keeps it a close second throughout as it similarly rises over time, from 35 to 45.
As for the other types of sustenance, those starchy Asian staples — rice and noodles -- lack mainstream appeal, starting low, making only marginal gains, and never rising above 10. In contrast, the lighter-weight salads, although initially a paltry five, exponentially advance to finish with a ‘healthy’ projection of 41.
In an age of obesity of epidemic proportions, the growing predilection for salads is certainly an encouraging sign.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 293, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...e, exponentially advance to finish with a 'healthy' projection of 41. ...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, look, second, similarly, so, as for, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 7.0 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 33.7804878049 80% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 3.97073170732 126% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1256.0 965.302439024 130% => OK
No of words: 220.0 196.424390244 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.70909090909 4.92477711251 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.85128510684 3.73543355544 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.18830863163 2.65546596893 120% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 106.607317073 159% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.768181818182 0.547539520022 140% => OK
syllable_count: 372.6 283.868780488 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.45097560976 117% => 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: 3.0 0.482926829268 621% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.4926829268 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.0096608213 43.030603864 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.555555556 112.824112599 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4444444444 22.9334400587 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 5.23603664747 172% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 3.83414634146 130% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => 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: 4.0 4.09268292683 98% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0830073595267 0.215688989381 38% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0313588592255 0.103423049105 30% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0454969372847 0.0843802449381 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0457554484079 0.15604864568 29% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0531683681687 0.0819641961636 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 13.2329268293 134% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 61.2550243902 63% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.51609756098 172% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 10.3012195122 134% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.13 11.4140731707 141% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.71 8.06136585366 133% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 40.7170731707 201% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.4329268293 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.9970731707 105% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.