The graph shows the average annual expenditure on cell phone and residential phone services
The line graph indicates the average yearly spending by Americans on mobile phone and residential phone services over a 10-year period. Overall, it is obvious that expenditure one cell phones rose significantly, whereas spending on residental phones fell gradually.
In 2001, Americans spent approximately $700 on residential phone services, compared to only around $200 on cellphone services. Over the following five years, residential phone expenditure decreased moderately by nearly $200. By contrast, spending on cellphones significantly increased to around $450.
By 2006, both spending on residential phones and cellphones had the same amount of money, at just over $500. In 2010, mobile phone expenditure reached about $750, whereas the figures for residental phones fell to just over $450.
- The illustrations show how chocolate is produced 11
- The graphs below show the types of music album purchased by people in Britain according to sex and age Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 70
- The process shows diamonds moving from the mine to the retailer 78
- As most foreign aid often benefits the donor more than the receiver developing countries should refuse to repay their debts To what extent do you agree or disagree 72
- The table below gives information on households with a regular use of a car in Great Britain from 1971 to 2007 97
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 120, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ne and residential phone services over a 10-year period. Overall, it is obvious t...
^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...g on residental phones fell gradually. In 2001, Americans spent approximately 0...
^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... significantly increased to around 50. By 2006, both spending on residential ph...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, whereas
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 1.0 7.0 14% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 6.8 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 2.0 5.60731707317 36% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 33.7804878049 71% => 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: 676.0 965.302439024 70% => OK
No of words: 118.0 196.424390244 60% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.72881355932 4.92477711251 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.29587325169 3.73543355544 88% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07200759778 2.65546596893 116% => OK
Unique words: 73.0 106.607317073 68% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.618644067797 0.547539520022 113% => OK
syllable_count: 209.7 283.868780488 74% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.45097560976 124% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 3.36585365854 178% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 7.0 8.94146341463 78% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 16.0 22.4926829268 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 20.0387379944 43.030603864 47% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 96.5714285714 112.824112599 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.8571428571 22.9334400587 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.57142857143 5.23603664747 30% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 1.69756097561 177% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.09268292683 122% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.396945087557 0.215688989381 184% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.186558872002 0.103423049105 180% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.107209561344 0.0843802449381 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.283766555196 0.15604864568 182% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.118856960006 0.0819641961636 145% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.2329268293 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.31 61.2550243902 63% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.51609756098 172% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.3012195122 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.66 11.4140731707 137% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.06136585366 108% => OK
difficult_words: 32.0 40.7170731707 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.4329268293 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.9970731707 76% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
More content wanted.
Minimum 150 words wanted.
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.