The graph shows average annual expenditures on cell phone and residential phone services between 2001 and 2010.
Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The line graph illustrates the average cost that American customers spent on mobile and landline phone services annually over a 10-year period.
Overall, spending on residential phone services dramatically declined, while popularity of mobile services increased sharply throughout a decade. Also, both of services met at the same record in 2006.
In 2001, spending on mobile phone services began by merely $200, while the amount of annual expenditure on the residential phone services was around $700. Over the following five years, expenditure on landline phone services gradually dropped below $600, whereas expenditure on cell phone services rose to just over $500.
In 2006 cell phones overtook landline phones, and the services became equal in popularity with customers' annual expenditure of about $550. Then, cell phone expenses rose to approximately $750 in 2010, making nearly a fourfold jump relatively to its initial figure in 2001. Meanwhile, spending on residential phone services experienced a steep fall in 2007 and went on to steadily decrease for the rest of the period.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-08-18 | arpu | 73 | view |
| 2019-04-23 | nicktyranov | 67 | view |
| 2019-04-23 | nicktyranov | 61 | view |
- The chart below shows the percentage of households in owned and rented accomodation in England and Wales between 1918 and 2011.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 78
- The graph shows average annual expenditures on cell phone and residential phone services between 2001 and 2010.Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, so, then, whereas, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 1.0 7.0 14% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 6.8 44% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 2.0 5.60731707317 36% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 33.7804878049 101% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 3.97073170732 0% => 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: 168.0 196.424390244 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.45238095238 4.92477711251 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.60020574368 3.73543355544 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80053040004 2.65546596893 105% => OK
Unique words: 96.0 106.607317073 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.571428571429 0.547539520022 104% => OK
syllable_count: 291.6 283.868780488 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.45097560976 117% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => 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: 21.0 22.4926829268 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.0805405358 43.030603864 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.5 112.824112599 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 22.9334400587 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.75 5.23603664747 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => 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: 6.0 4.09268292683 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.302734872788 0.215688989381 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.142050554773 0.103423049105 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0536118747864 0.0843802449381 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.186240434517 0.15604864568 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0521668339041 0.0819641961636 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.2329268293 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 61.2550243902 68% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 10.3012195122 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.33 11.4140731707 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.06136585366 102% => OK
difficult_words: 38.0 40.7170731707 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.4329268293 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.9970731707 95% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.0658536585 136% => 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.