The bar chart compares the volume of smartphones and landlines per 100 people in five various countries.
The bar chart compares the volume of smartphones and landlines per 100 people in five various countries.
Overall, Denmark and Sweden population have a higher number of mobile phones and landlines, while people in Canada and the US tend to use less of these gadgets.
Looking at the graph, it is crystal clear that Denmark and Italy citizens ranked first in terms of landlines and cellphone constituting approximately 85 and 90 respectively. However, Italian people accounted for the lowest number with slightly above 40 regarding employing landlines.
There is a similarity in terms of utilizing these two forms of communication between Sweden and the UK population making roughly 85 and 60 in mobile and landlines respectively. In Canada and the US, slightly more people use landlines, around 20, compared with mobiles which made nearly 40. Conversely, in Germany, roughly 10 people per 100 used mobile than landlines. Also, there is a similar trend in the UK, Sweden, and Italy to make use of mobiles more than landlines.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-03-29 | Mohammad Khaleghi Esfahani | 73 | view |
- The line graph demonstrates the volume of travelers at the underground station in London. 78
- It is true to say that in the new millennium and due to the consumerism culture, some citizens borrow money in order to purchase various products and facilities which do not use and cost an arm and a leg sometimes. 78
- Everybody should donate a fixed amount of their income to support charity. How far do you share this viewpoint? 78
- The bar chart demonstrates the proportion of British individuals donating part of their emolument to benevolent organizations in two different time span. 78
- Some people support the idea of imposing taxes on fossil fuels ( oil, coal, and gas) in order to reduce energy consumption. Others disagree with this approach.Consider the debate and its arguments, and come to your own conclusion. 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, first, however, look, regarding, so, while
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 : 12.0 6.8 176% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 33.7804878049 71% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 863.0 965.302439024 89% => OK
No of words: 167.0 196.424390244 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16766467066 4.92477711251 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.59483629437 3.73543355544 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84489751288 2.65546596893 107% => OK
Unique words: 99.0 106.607317073 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.592814371257 0.547539520022 108% => OK
syllable_count: 270.9 283.868780488 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
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: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.4926829268 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.9276036968 43.030603864 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.875 112.824112599 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.875 22.9334400587 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5 5.23603664747 143% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
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: 4.0 4.09268292683 98% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.289599330153 0.215688989381 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.172145449018 0.103423049105 166% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.315745593691 0.0843802449381 374% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.29786862794 0.15604864568 191% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.406111219858 0.0819641961636 495% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.2329268293 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 61.2550243902 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.3012195122 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 11.4140731707 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.06136585366 109% => OK
difficult_words: 44.0 40.7170731707 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.4329268293 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.9970731707 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => 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.