July 4, 2022
Data description practice 2
The information provided gives an overview of the consumption of fish and meat in a European country from 1970 to 2004.
On the whole, there was a downward trend in the total consumption of fish and three other kinds of meat during the 25 years. Only the consumption of chicken witnessed a rise, while beef, lamb, and fish all saw a drop.
In 1979, the highest consumption volume came from beef. However, when it comes to around 1987, chicken surpassed beef at 200 grams per person per week, becoming the most popular meat in the country, and its popularity kept increasing all the way to 2004. On the contrary, the consumption amount of beef continued to fall, which nearly shrank by 50%. The popularity of lamb also cooled down, with the same rate of drop.
Over the past 25 years, people in the European country seemed to have less interest in fish than in three other kinds of meat. The consumption of fish remained at the bottom position, which fluctuated around 50 grams per capita each week steadily.
Data description practice 2
The information provided gives an overview of the consumption of fish and meat in a European country from 1970 to 2004.
On the whole, there was a downward trend in the total consumption of fish and three other kinds of meat during the 25 years.
Only the consumption of chicken witnessed a risechicken saw a rise in consumption, while beef, lamb, and fish all saw a drop.
This one is difficult to correct... but I think seeing a rise in/of something is a specific phrase, in which changing the word order just sounds weird.
Sounds weird: Only the consumption of chicken saw a rise
Sounds okay: Only chicken saw a rise in consumption.
Also difficult is whether "witness" works in this case. I'm not sure to be honest, but it sounds a bit odd. It's probably a safer bet to keep "witness" with actual people and not to use it in that phrase.
In 1979, the highest consumption volume came from beef.
However, when it comes to around 1987, chicken surpassed beef at 200 grams per person per week, becoming the most popular meat in the country, and its popularity kept increasing all the way to 2004.
On the contraryother hand, the consumption amount of beef continued to fall, which nearly shrank bshrinking by nearly 50%.
The popularity of lamb also cooled down, withfell at the same rate of drop.
Over the past 25 years, people in the European country seemed to have less interest in fish than in three other kinds of meat.
Fish is not a kind of meat.
The consumption of fish remained at the bottom position, which fluctuated steadily at around 50 grams per capita each week steadily.
Feedback
That was really difficult to correct - which I think is a positive sign. Grammatically very good - it's just a question of making it sound more natural, more "native"-like
July 5, 2022
Only the consumption of chicken witnessed a risechicken saw a rise in consumption, while beef, lamb, and fish all saw a drop.
Hi calebmgshort, thank you so much for correcting me and leaving such insightful comments. I really appreciate it!
This is something I never thought about before. Will keep it in mind. Thanks!
July 5, 2022
On the contraryother hand, the consumption amount of beef continued to fall, which nearly shrank bshrinking by nearly 50%.
A follow up question: I fully understand that shrinking is correct here, but if possible, would you please further explain why you think which is less native or even wrong? I thought both work well in such a context, no?
Many thanks in advance!! :)
July 5, 2022
Hi calebmgshort, thank you so much for correcting me and leaving such insightful comments. I really appreciate it! This is something I never thought about before. Will keep it in mind. Thanks!
No problem! Glad to help!
July 5, 2022
A follow up question: I fully understand that shrinking is correct here, but if possible, would you please further explain why you think which is less native or even wrong? I thought both work well in such a context, no? Many thanks in advance!! :)
Great question! Of course at the most basic level I just know what "sounds right", and then I have to try to make up a good rule to explain it logically. I'll give it my best shot.
I think it's because the amount of shrinking is happening alongside / in union with the main idea (that the consumption fell). This idea that the second thing is happening along with the first thing is expressed in the -ing form.
Consider this sentence: On the other hand, the consumption of beef continued to fall, WHICH caused a big headache for the cattle industry.
In this case the "which" is an extra idea, it's not really the same idea.
But in your case, the "shrinking" is kind of fluidly happening alongside the consumption of beef falling. In other words, it's kind of the same thing.
That's the best explanation I could think of! Definitely one of the harder English questions I've been asked.
July 5, 2022
Great question! Of course at the most basic level I just know what "sounds right", and then I have to try to make up a good rule to explain it logically. I'll give it my best shot. I think it's because the amount of shrinking is happening alongside / in union with the main idea (that the consumption fell). This idea that the second thing is happening along with the first thing is expressed in the -ing form. Consider this sentence: On the other hand, the consumption of beef continued to fall, WHICH caused a big headache for the cattle industry. In this case the "which" is an extra idea, it's not really the same idea. But in your case, the "shrinking" is kind of fluidly happening alongside the consumption of beef falling. In other words, it's kind of the same thing. That's the best explanation I could think of! Definitely one of the harder English questions I've been asked.
This is very compelling. I think I get you now. Thanks for your time and patience!!!
July 6, 2022
This is very compelling. I think I get you now. Thanks for your time and patience!!!
Of course!
|
Data description practice 2 This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
The information provided gives an overview of the consumption of fish and meat in a European country from 1970 to 2004. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
On the whole, there was a downward trend in the total consumption of fish and three other kinds of meat during the 25 years. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Only the consumption of chicken witnessed a rise, while beef, lamb, and fish all saw a drop. Only This one is difficult to correct... but I think seeing a rise in/of something is a specific phrase, in which changing the word order just sounds weird. Sounds weird: Only the consumption of chicken saw a rise Sounds okay: Only chicken saw a rise in consumption. Also difficult is whether "witness" works in this case. I'm not sure to be honest, but it sounds a bit odd. It's probably a safer bet to keep "witness" with actual people and not to use it in that phrase. |
|
In 1979, the highest consumption volume came from beef. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
However, when it comes to around 1987, chicken surpassed beef at 200 grams per person per week, becoming the most popular meat in the country, and its popularity kept increasing all the way to 2004. However, |
|
On the contrary, the consumption amount of beef continued to fall, which nearly shrank by 50%. On the |
|
The popularity of lamb also cooled down, with the same rate of drop. The popularity of lamb also |
|
Over the past 25 years, people in the European country seemed to have less interest in fish than other three kinds of meat. |
|
The consumption of fish remained at the bottom position, which fluctuated around 50 grams per capita each week steadily. The consumption of fish remained at the bottom position, which fluctuated steadily at around 50 grams per capita each week |
|
Over the past 25 years, people in the European country seemed to have less interest in fish than in three other kinds of meat. Over the past 25 years, people in the European country seemed to have less interest in fish than in three Fish is not a kind of meat. |
You need LangCorrect Premium to access this feature.
Go Premium