The bar chart below shows the percentage participation of men in senior development in three companies between 1980 and the year 2010.Summarise the information by selecting and report in the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

Essay topics:

The bar chart below shows the percentage participation of men in senior development in three companies between 1980 and the year 2010.
Summarise the information by selecting and report in the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The bar graph compares the participation rates among male employees who committed to senior development in three different major firms worldwide for a period of 30 years.

It is clear that IBM had the lowest proportion of staff participation in early stage, but its figure overtook those for the other competitors by 2010. Similarly, the figure for Microsoft saw an upward trend, eventually surpassing those for Apple, but not as much as IBM.

In 1980, merely 2% of IBM personnel participated in the position, which was the lowest proportion. By contrast, Apple had the most participating employees’ rate, at 15%, while the percentage for Apple stood at just under 10%. By 1995, IBM saw a dramatic increase in the percentage, reaching 25%, which overtook the proportions for Microsoft and Apple. In the meantime, the male participation rates of Microsoft and Apple rose by 5% and 6% by the same year, respectively.

From 1995 to 2010, the figure for IBM soared more than twice as much as in 1995, to a peak of 63% in 2010. Likely, Apple saw a substantial rise in the percentage by 30%, while Apple only experienced a relatively slight increase to 25% over the same period.

Votes
Average: 8 (2 votes)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2018-12-12 SelenaNguyen 91 view
2015-08-19 priharsari 70 view
2015-05-06 supbro119 80 view
Essays by user supbro119 :

Comments

Likely, Apple saw a substantial rise in the percentage by 30%,
Likely, Microsoft saw a substantial rise in the percentage by 30%,

Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 7.0 out of 9
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 9 10
No. of Words: 200 200
No. of Characters: 933 1000
No. of Different Words: 110 100
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.761 4.0
Average Word Length: 4.665 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.885 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 52 60
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 39 50
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 39 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 29 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.222 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 3.326 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.444 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.429 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.685 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.07 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4