The table shows the worldwide market share of mobile phone manufacturers in the years 2005 and 2006.
The table data compares global market shares of leading cell phone brands in 2005 and 2006. Generally speaking, BenQ Mobile had the lowest market share globally whereas Nokia Mobile secured the top in its rank as number one leading cellphone company worldwide.
Manufacturer of Nokia cell phone gained the largest market share, one-third of global mobile phone sales in both years. On the other hand, Motorola also showed a significant increase in their sale in 2006 by almost 4% from previous year. Samsung had just over one-tenth mobile phone market share both years and their share declined in 2006. However, Sony Ericsson mobile had been able to maintain their sales with only a slight increase at 7.4% in 2006. Likewise, a gentle decline of less than 1% market share could be observed for Samsung and LG in 2006.
All other mobile phone companies comprised over 19% global cell phone share, but their figure dropped by 3% in 2006.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-11-16 | Lienak24 | 67 | view |
| 2021-09-15 | ujjwalsatyam 9211 | 73 | view |
| 2021-08-25 | dh.phoebe13 | view | |
| 2021-08-25 | dh.phoebe13 | view | |
| 2021-08-20 | minhpn | 73 | view |
- Describe a custom from your country that you would like people from other countries to adopt.Explain your choice, using specific reasons and examples. 84
- Should state museums charge visiting fees or that should be completely free?What is your viewpoint on this issue?Give reasons for your answer. 84
- Nowadays it is more difficult for children to concentrate to pay attention in school.Discuss the causes and propose some solutions. 84
- Many teachers assign homework to students every day. Do you think that daily homework is necessary for students?Use specific reasons and details to support your answer. 78
- The chart below shows the number of trips made by children in one country in 1990 and 2010 to travel to and from school using different modes of transport.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where r 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, likewise, so, third, whereas, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 2.0 7.0 29% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 6.8 59% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 0.0 3.15609756098 0% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 33.7804878049 65% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 3.97073170732 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 784.0 965.302439024 81% => OK
No of words: 158.0 196.424390244 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.96202531646 4.92477711251 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.54539209256 3.73543355544 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.19717812935 2.65546596893 83% => OK
Unique words: 99.0 106.607317073 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.626582278481 0.547539520022 114% => OK
syllable_count: 235.8 283.868780488 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.33902439024 46% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 3.36585365854 30% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.4926829268 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 21.7241225369 43.030603864 50% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 98.0 112.824112599 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.75 22.9334400587 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.875 5.23603664747 169% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 3.70975609756 216% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.09268292683 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.466098662181 0.215688989381 216% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.212274551956 0.103423049105 205% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0959049153649 0.0843802449381 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.30206769491 0.15604864568 194% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0644083686535 0.0819641961636 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.2329268293 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 61.2550243902 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 10.3012195122 92% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 11.4140731707 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.48 8.06136585366 105% => OK
difficult_words: 39.0 40.7170731707 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.9970731707 87% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.0658536585 90% => 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.