Generally speaking, public transport represented the highest percentage of phone usage, and family feasts recorded the least phone productivity. Additionally, elders relied on their phones less than others.
The chart makes a comparison of the proportion of phone usage in four particular settings in four age groups in the year 2015.
Generally speaking, public transport represented the highest percentage of phone usage, and family feasts recorded the least phone productivity. Additionally, elders relied on their phones less than others.
Phone was heavily used in the younger age group, statistics revealed that over 90% of the 18s to 29s utilize their phone in public transport, this number witnessed a reduction to exactly 80% and just over 70% in the street and restaurants. The higher age group 30-49s also had a high phone use cases with right under 80% in public transport, they took the first place in two other locations, climbing marginally compared to public transport to approximately 85% and just under 80% in the street and restaurant. This number was reduced to half with the midlife group, with 50% in public transport, gradually decreasing 10% in the street and restaurant.
Family dinner’s figures for phone productivity fluctuated around 10% for all age groups.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-08-30 | quochung95.ftu2@gmail.com | 84 | view |
- Several nations let old people decide to work to any age they desire Some people hold the view that they shouldn t grant them the ability to do so From my opinion I believe that as long as they are willing to continue their working life no one should proh 56
- The pie chart displays the changes in the proportion of water consumption and the bar chart illustrates the changes in the percentage of water use in Australia in 2004
- A highly controversial issue today relates to whether to supporting the relationship between enterprises and traditions from all over the world or not In this essay I am going to examine this question from both points of view and then give my own opinion 89
- The pie chart displays the changes in the proportion of water consumption and the bar chart illustrates the changes in the percentage of water use in Australia in 2004
- The table makes a comparison of the number of tourists in the UK and their average spending over the 5 years period from 2003 to 2008 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...lied on their phones less than others. Phone was heavily used in the younger a...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, if, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 2.0 7.0 29% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 33.7804878049 86% => 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: 916.0 965.302439024 95% => OK
No of words: 175.0 196.424390244 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.23428571429 4.92477711251 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.63713576256 3.73543355544 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79267847437 2.65546596893 105% => OK
Unique words: 104.0 106.607317073 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.594285714286 0.547539520022 109% => OK
syllable_count: 262.8 283.868780488 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.33902439024 46% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 3.36585365854 30% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 7.0 8.94146341463 78% => 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: 25.0 22.4926829268 111% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.200587241 43.030603864 163% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.857142857 112.824112599 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 22.9334400587 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.71428571429 5.23603664747 52% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.09268292683 122% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.43961611844 0.215688989381 204% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.223220911537 0.103423049105 216% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.174144074654 0.0843802449381 206% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.283117237289 0.15604864568 181% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.246780651802 0.0819641961636 301% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 13.2329268293 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 61.2550243902 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.3012195122 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 11.4140731707 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.12 8.06136585366 113% => OK
difficult_words: 47.0 40.7170731707 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.9970731707 109% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.