The chart shows the results of surveys in one African country asking teenagers the main reasons for using their phones between 2016 and 2019.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The bar chart compares the purposes that youngsters in one African nation use their phone over 4 years, from 2016 to 2019.
It is clear that teenagers in that country used their phone most for browsing social platforms, while the purpose which is phone call accounts for the least of their phone uses.
In 2016, the percentage of the reason that teenagers use phones for social networks made up half of the total reasons, followed by a slight fluctuation in the next 2 years and peaked at 56% in 2019. Regarding the phone used for email purpose, its proportion was the second highest during these 4 years, saw a decrease year on year, from 25% to 19% in 2016 and 2019 respectively.
The reason that African’s teenagers used their phones for taking photos in 2016 occupied a modest 10%, twice as many as in 2019. Contrary to the phone call reason, the percentage of this reason remained stable in the first 2 years at 15% and increased to 20% in 2019.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-21 | Phuong1810 | 78 | view |
| 2023-08-02 | taman150507 | 73 | view |
| 2023-04-21 | pttd.duong@gmail.com | view | |
| 2023-04-21 | pttd.duong@gmail.com | 78 | view |
| 2023-04-16 | Md Mazedul Islam | 73 | view |
- The first chart below gives information about the money spent by British parents on their children s sports between 2008 and 2014 The second chart shows the number of children who participated in three sports in Britain over the same time period 89
- The diagram shows the life cycle of the silkworm
- Some cities create housing for their growing population by providing taller buildings Other cities create housing by building on wider areas of land Which solution is better 67
- The chart shows the results of surveys in one African country asking teenagers the main reasons for using their phones between 2016 and 2019 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 78
- The diagrams show a museum and its surroundings in 1990 and 2010
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, regarding, second, 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 : 3.0 6.8 44% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 3.15609756098 190% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 5.60731707317 232% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 28.0 33.7804878049 83% => 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: 791.0 965.302439024 82% => OK
No of words: 171.0 196.424390244 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.62573099415 4.92477711251 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.61617157096 3.73543355544 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.39177711979 2.65546596893 90% => OK
Unique words: 99.0 106.607317073 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.578947368421 0.547539520022 106% => OK
syllable_count: 218.7 283.868780488 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 6.0 8.94146341463 67% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 28.0 22.4926829268 124% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 28.5170514293 43.030603864 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.833333333 112.824112599 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.5 22.9334400587 124% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.83333333333 5.23603664747 111% => 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 : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.311563534919 0.215688989381 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.175585570187 0.103423049105 170% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0633272157389 0.0843802449381 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.208510896121 0.15604864568 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0281081334299 0.0819641961636 34% => 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: 14.6 13.2329268293 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 68.44 61.2550243902 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.3012195122 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.87 11.4140731707 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.06136585366 102% => OK
difficult_words: 35.0 40.7170731707 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 11.4329268293 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.9970731707 120% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.0658536585 117% => 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.