The line graph illustrates how much money American spending on mobile phone, domestic and oversea landline services yearly from 2001 to 2010.
The initial impression from graph is that the amount of money which customers spending on mobile phone and worldwide fixed-line services grew up considerably. In contrast, the figure for domestic landline services witnessed an opposite trend over the period shown.
Starting at about $700, the national services got the highest value, following by worldwide with about $250 and the smallest was the figure for mobile phone at $200 in 2001. However, there was a significant decline to $600 in the amount of money spending on domestic landline services in the year 2003. Meanwhile, the expenditure on cell phone and oversea fixed-line services growth considerably by more than $300.
After climbing from 2001 to 2003, the amount of money Americans spent on mobile phone fixed-line services continued to bounce sharply to more than $700 and hit the highest level in the last year. In addition, the spending on domestic landline services continued to plunge to $400 and reached the second level. Moreover, worldwide fixed-line services remained stable and touched the lowest point at around $300.
- The graph below shows the number of overseas visitors to three different areas of a European country between 1987 and 2007 73
- The given line graph illustrates clients average every year spending on mobile phone national and international land line and services 67
- The graph shows the average Japanese month salary Yen from 1953 to 1983 and the prices of black and white televisions and color televisions during the same period 73
- The chart illustrates average CO2 emissions per person in four European countries between 1975 and 2015 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
- The chart below shows the annual rice production in 4 countries in 1995 2005 2015 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, moreover, second, while, in addition, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 7.0 43% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 1.0 5.60731707317 18% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 33.7804878049 112% => 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: 1029.0 965.302439024 107% => OK
No of words: 196.0 196.424390244 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25 4.92477711251 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.74165738677 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63650149819 2.65546596893 99% => OK
Unique words: 102.0 106.607317073 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520408163265 0.547539520022 95% => OK
syllable_count: 314.1 283.868780488 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.33902439024 161% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.4926829268 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.821268911 43.030603864 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.333333333 112.824112599 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7777777778 22.9334400587 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.88888888889 5.23603664747 132% => 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 : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.09268292683 73% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.304963418057 0.215688989381 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.149558831455 0.103423049105 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0893234187901 0.0843802449381 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.233119324664 0.15604864568 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0636383117973 0.0819641961636 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.2329268293 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 61.2550243902 82% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.3012195122 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 11.4140731707 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.9 8.06136585366 98% => OK
difficult_words: 40.0 40.7170731707 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.9970731707 95% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.