The first line graph outlines how the electrical appliance ownership in households in a country transformed during a century commencing from 1920 while the second chart delineates how it had affected the time spent on household work per week by the citizens in this country.
As a general trend, with the increasing number of electrical devices possessed by families, their need for doing housework significantly declined.
As the graph reveals, only 30 percent of households in this country used to have vacuum cleaners and four out of ten families had washing machines in 1920. Refrigerators were a rare electric appliance at that time. Just after two decades, however, refrigerator possessions shoot up, and almost half of the families owned these three electric items in their homes. More families started to own such devices and at the beginning of the twenty-first century, almost all households had fridges and vacuum cleaners. The washing machine was owned by more than 70% of families which slowly but steadily increased till 2019. At that point, there was hardly any family without a refrigerator or vacuum cleaner.
It is interesting to note that, with the increasing number of electric appliances owned by families, their need for doing household work like preparing meals, cleaning and washing clothes remarkably diminished. While they used to work for 50 hours a week doing such work in 1920, it decreased to 20 hours in 1960 and 10 in 2019.
- The given line graph illustrates clients average every year spending on mobile phone national and international land line and services 78
- The graph below gives information from a 2008 report about consumption of energy in the USA since 1980 with projections until 2030 84
- The chart below shows the percentage of the day working adults spent doing different activities in a particular country in 1958 and in 2008 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
- the table below gives information on the frequency of using internet by adults in one European country between 2006 to 2010 78
- The chart illustrates consumption of three kinds of fast food by teenagers in Mauritius from 1985 to 2015 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 216, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...a rare electric appliance at that time. Just after two decades, however, refrige...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 7.0 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 1.00243902439 200% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 6.8 118% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 5.60731707317 232% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 33.7804878049 112% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 3.97073170732 50% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1229.0 965.302439024 127% => OK
No of words: 238.0 196.424390244 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16386554622 4.92477711251 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.92775363542 3.73543355544 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77471623924 2.65546596893 104% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 106.607317073 134% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.600840336134 0.547539520022 110% => OK
syllable_count: 361.8 283.868780488 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 1.53170731707 261% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 2.0 4.33902439024 46% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.07073170732 280% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.8609378111 43.030603864 137% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.9 112.824112599 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8 22.9334400587 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.8 5.23603664747 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 1.13902439024 176% => OK
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: 0.180900818818 0.215688989381 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0711428451392 0.103423049105 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0563193257432 0.0843802449381 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116070719604 0.15604864568 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0488218770687 0.0819641961636 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.2329268293 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 61.2550243902 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.3012195122 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 11.4140731707 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.03 8.06136585366 100% => OK
difficult_words: 49.0 40.7170731707 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.4329268293 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.