The graph below shows US consumers' average annual expenditures on cell phone and residential phone services between 2001 and 2010
The line graph compares average yearly spending by Americans on mobile and landline phone services from 2001 to 2010.
It is clear that spending on landline phones fell steadily over the 10-year period, while mobile phone expenditure rose quickly. The year 2006 marks the point at which expenditure on mobile services overtook that for residential phone services.
In 2001, US consumers spent an average of nearly $700 on residential phone services, compared to only around $200 on cell phone services. Over the following five years, average yearly spending on landlines dropped by nearly $200. By contrast, expenditure on mobiles rose by approximately $300.
In the year 2006, the average American paid out the same amount of money on both types of phone service, spending just over $500 on each. By 2010, expenditure on mobile phones had reached around $750, while the figure for spending on residential services had fallen to just over half this amount.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-05-09 | minhtram166 | 78 | view |
| 2021-06-08 | quynhhuong656 | 61 | view |
- The graph below shows the percentage of urban suburban and rural households in England that had Internet access between 1999 and 2004 82
- In recent years the structure of a family and the role of its members are gradually changing What kinds of changes can occur Do you think these changes are positive and negative 87
- In recent years the structure of a family and the role of its members are gradually changing What kinds of changes can occur Do you think these changes are positive and negative 88
- The graph and table below give information about water use worldwide and water consumption in two different countries. 78
- The graphs above give information about fast food consumption in England 61
Transition Words or Phrases used:
while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 1.0 7.0 14% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 6.8 15% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 33.7804878049 98% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 3.97073170732 0% => More nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 801.0 965.302439024 83% => OK
No of words: 155.0 196.424390244 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16774193548 4.92477711251 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.52844152537 3.73543355544 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58665429407 2.65546596893 97% => OK
Unique words: 87.0 106.607317073 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.561290322581 0.547539520022 103% => OK
syllable_count: 248.4 283.868780488 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.114634146341 0% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.4926829268 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 27.7161956264 43.030603864 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.125 112.824112599 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.375 22.9334400587 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.625 5.23603664747 12% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 3.70975609756 27% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.09268292683 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.331986923074 0.215688989381 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.160213175162 0.103423049105 155% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0932387910798 0.0843802449381 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.227684067389 0.15604864568 146% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0376056959627 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: 12.6 13.2329268293 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 61.2550243902 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.3012195122 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 11.4140731707 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.64 8.06136585366 95% => OK
difficult_words: 30.0 40.7170731707 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.4329268293 74% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.9970731707 87% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.0658536585 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
More content wanted.
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.