The chart below shows the total number of minutes (in billions) of telephone calls in the UK, divided into three categories, from 1995-2002.
The given graph shows the comparison of time spent by UK residents on telephone calls and listed into three types (local, national and international and mobiles) between 1995 to 2000. Overall, as can be seen in the graph, the British spent time on telephone calls in 2002 was higher than the time spent compared in 1995.
To be more precise, local fixed-line calls were the highest throughout the period, rising from around 72 billion minutes in 1995 to just under 90 billion minutes in 1998. After reaching the peaked of 90 billion minutes in the following year, it started to plummet down to around 71 billion minutes in 2002. The national and international fixed-line calls grew steadily from 38 billion to 61 billion minutes respectively from 1995 to 2002. But it grew slowly in the last two years over the period.
Besides, there was a ceaselessly increased in the mobile calls that the UK residents spent on from 3 billion in 1995 to 9 billion in 1998. In the following year, the total number of mobile calls minutes had dramatically increased from 13 billion to the highest 45 billion minutes in 2002.
In conclusion, national and international fixed-line calls and mobile calls had the highest minutes spent by the British in the 2000s while the local fixed-line had the most top minutes spent in the '90s.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-14 | Nguyễn Thành Vinh | 73 | view |
| 2020-01-06 | aghasaeed | 78 | view |
| 2019-12-22 | rahulsd | 67 | view |
| 2019-12-04 | morbymuku | 56 | view |
| 2019-11-28 | Saeed Najd Ataei | 78 | view |
- The chart below shows the total number of minutes (in billions) of telephone calls in the UK, divided into three categories, from 1995-2002. 73
- The first chart below shows how energy is used in an average Australian household The second chart shows the greenhouse gas emissions which result from this energy use 66
- The first chart below shows how energy is used in an average Australian household The second chart shows the greenhouse gas emissions which result from this energy use 86
- The charts below show the proportions of British students at one university in England who were able to speak other languages in addition to English, in 2000 and 2010. 78
- Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, so, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 7.0 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 3.0 5.60731707317 54% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 33.7804878049 139% => 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: 1101.0 965.302439024 114% => OK
No of words: 226.0 196.424390244 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87168141593 4.92477711251 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.87727950738 3.73543355544 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57903877247 2.65546596893 97% => OK
Unique words: 103.0 106.607317073 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.455752212389 0.547539520022 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 314.1 283.868780488 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => 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: 25.0 22.4926829268 111% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.684223345 43.030603864 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.333333333 112.824112599 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.1111111111 22.9334400587 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.22222222222 5.23603664747 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 3.70975609756 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.386654546062 0.215688989381 179% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.179578874827 0.103423049105 174% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0928777329336 0.0843802449381 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.231493349223 0.15604864568 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0945675211921 0.0819641961636 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 13.2329268293 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 63.02 61.2550243902 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.3012195122 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 11.4140731707 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.32 8.06136585366 91% => OK
difficult_words: 35.0 40.7170731707 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.4329268293 114% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.9970731707 109% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.