The graph below shows consumers' average annual expenditure on cell phone, national and
international fixed-line and services in America between 2001 and 2010.
The line graph illustrates the average amount of money spent yearly on mobile phones, national and
international landline phones in the US over a period of 9 years.
It is clear that while the yearly spending on mobile phones increased significantly, the opposite was true for national landline phone expenditure. Also, the figure for international fixed-line service was lowest during the period.
In 2001, there was an average of nearly $700 spent on national landline phones by US residents, in comparison with only around $200 each on mobile phones and international landline services. Over the
next five years, the average amount poured into national fixed-line phones fell by approximately $200. By constrast, yearly spending on cell phones witnessed a significant increase of roughly $300. At the
same time, the figure for overseas landline services fluctuated slightly below $300.
In 2006, US consumers spent the same amount of money on mobile and national fixed-line services, with just over $500 on each. From the year 2006 onwards, it can be seen that the average yearly
expenditure on mobile phones surpassed that on national fixed-line phones and mobile phones became the most common means of communication. To be specific, yearly spending on mobile phone services increased to nearly $750 in the last year, while the figure for national landline phone ones decreased to about $400 at the end of the period. During the same period, there was a stability in the figure for overseas phone calls.
- The table shows the percentage of students giving good ratings for different aspects of a university in China in 2000 2005 2010 77
- The graph below shows consumers average annual expenditure on cell phone national and international fixed line and services in America between 2001 and 2010 56
- The Chart shows expected city visits by country of origin for 2018 Thousands Year 84
- Earlier technological developments brought more benefits and changed the lives of ordinary people more than recent technological developments To what extent do you agree or disagree 78
- The table shows the percentage of students giving a good ratings for different aspects of a university in China in 2000 2005 2010
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, so, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 7.0 100% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 6.8 59% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 8.0 5.60731707317 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 44.0 33.7804878049 130% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 3.97073170732 25% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1266.0 965.302439024 131% => OK
No of words: 243.0 196.424390244 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20987654321 4.92477711251 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94822203886 3.73543355544 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78225215009 2.65546596893 105% => OK
Unique words: 112.0 106.607317073 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.460905349794 0.547539520022 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 404.1 283.868780488 142% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.45097560976 117% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 3.36585365854 297% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 8.94146341463 123% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.4926829268 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.8555072307 43.030603864 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.090909091 112.824112599 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0909090909 22.9334400587 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.72727272727 5.23603664747 33% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 8.0 3.83414634146 209% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 3.70975609756 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.09268292683 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.281534045624 0.215688989381 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.129366684246 0.103423049105 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.053047632115 0.0843802449381 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144585774291 0.15604864568 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0374749099428 0.0819641961636 46% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.2329268293 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 61.2550243902 66% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 10.3012195122 127% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 11.4140731707 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.78 8.06136585366 97% => OK
difficult_words: 47.0 40.7170731707 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.4329268293 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.9970731707 98% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.0658536585 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs 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.