The graph shows the number of minutes of three types of phone calls in Australia between 1992-2000.
Summaries the information in the charts and make comparisons where appropriate.
A glance at the graph provided, revealing million minutes per day across the years from 1992 to 2000 in Australia, manifests some striking similarities among local, long distance and mobile during that time. It is obvious that during the interval from 1992 to 1996 not only did the time of local call climb, but also the time of call of two others rose.
Increasing steadily from just about 70 million minutes per day in 1992 to more than 80 of that in 1996, local’s telephone call times declined steady to a low of just 70 in continue to 2000. While local dropped after a given time, two others just passed growing trend until 2000. Commencing of mobile’s telephone call time was in the immediate vicinity of zero in 1992, then increased throughout the period from 1992 to 1994. This was followed by an exponential growth, reaching to the highest amount, 40 million, in 2000. Long distance increased but more steadily than mobile.
It is interesting to note that while in the incipient point, in 1992, there were a huge difference between them, but gradually they became convergence.
- The graph shows the monthly expenditure on three types of restaurant food in Australia The plot shows the annual number of restaurant visits for the same types of food between 1965 and 2015 100
- In many countries women and men are working full time. It is therefore, logical for women and men to share household works. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 84
- Some feel executives in large companies should receive high salaries while others think they are paid too much compared to ordinary workers Discuss both views and give your own opinion 89
- The table below shows the expenditures of four car companies on advertising in the UK in 2002 84
- People are consuming more and more sugar based drinks Why What can be done to reduce sugary drink consumption 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, so, then, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 7.0 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 6.8 59% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 9.0 5.60731707317 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 33.7804878049 115% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 3.97073170732 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 916.0 965.302439024 95% => OK
No of words: 187.0 196.424390244 95% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89839572193 4.92477711251 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.69794460899 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58388948808 2.65546596893 97% => OK
Unique words: 114.0 106.607317073 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.609625668449 0.547539520022 111% => OK
syllable_count: 268.2 283.868780488 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.482926829268 414% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 3.36585365854 59% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.4139087201 43.030603864 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.5 112.824112599 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.375 22.9334400587 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.75 5.23603664747 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
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: 2.0 4.09268292683 49% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.150734194188 0.215688989381 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0645389545122 0.103423049105 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0380748949465 0.0843802449381 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100877461906 0.15604864568 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0301289682495 0.0819641961636 37% => 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: 13.3 13.2329268293 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 61.2550243902 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.3012195122 96% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.44 11.4140731707 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.06136585366 104% => OK
difficult_words: 43.0 40.7170731707 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.5 11.4329268293 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.0658536585 163% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.