The graph below shows consumers' average annual expenditure on cell phone, national and international fixed-line and services in America between 2001 and 2010.
The graph compares the figures of annual expenditure which American people used on cell phone, national and international fixed-line services from 2001 to 2010. Overall, it is readily apparent that there was a much larger number of Americans spent on cell phones and national fixed services compared to the International ones, and cell phones experienced the fastest spending rate on telecommunication services.
At the beginning of the observed period, the figure for expenditure of national fixed-line services which was used by Americans was approximately $700. Meanwhile, international fixed-line and cell phone were lower, at almost $250 and $200 respectively. In 2006, the quantity of Americans spent money on cell phone and national fixed-line was at the same level of nearly $500 whilst the number of International remained stable at just over $300.
In 2010, the highest amount of annual telecommunication expenditure was on cell phone with just under $800 of American having use in comparison with about $400 of national fixed-line and only $300 of international fixed-line.
- The graph below shows consumers average annual expenditure on cell phone national and international fixed line and services in America between 2001 and 2010 73
- The graph below shows consumers average annual expenditure on cell phone national and international fixed line and services in America between 2001 and 2010 73
- The graph below shows consumers average annual expenditure on cell phone national and international fixed line and services in America between 2001 and 2010 87
- The graph below shows consumers average annual expenditure on cell phone national and international fixed line and services in America between 2001 and 2010 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 201, Rule ID: WERE_VBB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'where' or 'we'?
Suggestion: where; we
...international fixed-line and cell phone were lower, at almost 50 and 00 respectively...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
so, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 7.0 100% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 3.15609756098 95% => OK
Pronoun: 2.0 5.60731707317 36% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 33.7804878049 95% => 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: 906.0 965.302439024 94% => OK
No of words: 167.0 196.424390244 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.4251497006 4.92477711251 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.59483629437 3.73543355544 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.27913070743 2.65546596893 123% => OK
Unique words: 87.0 106.607317073 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.520958083832 0.547539520022 95% => OK
syllable_count: 293.4 283.868780488 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.45097560976 124% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 27.0 22.4926829268 120% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 49.7105510821 43.030603864 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 151.0 112.824112599 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.8333333333 22.9334400587 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.5 5.23603664747 29% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => 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: 0.385207168586 0.215688989381 179% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.245106981072 0.103423049105 237% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.113291201674 0.0843802449381 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.303963188962 0.15604864568 195% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0830916281293 0.0819641961636 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.1 13.2329268293 137% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 27.15 61.2550243902 44% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.51609756098 200% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 10.3012195122 157% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.51 11.4140731707 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.06136585366 102% => OK
difficult_words: 34.0 40.7170731707 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 11.4329268293 136% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.9970731707 116% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.0658536585 117% => 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.