The table shows the worldwide market share of the mobile phone market for manufacturers in the years 2005 and 2006.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.The table compares mobile phone market share for eight manufactures all over the world in the years 2005 and 2006.
The table compares mobile phone market share for eight manufactures all over the world in the years 2005 and 2006.
It is clearly seen that Sonny was the most common brand in the years 2005 and 2006. While the percentage of market share of most countries fell between 2005 and 2006, that of Nokia, Motorola and Sony Ericsson rose.
Nokia ranked as the most popular manufacture in both 2005 and 2006. Its market shares increased from 32.5% to 35%. In the nearest competitor, Motorola saw a rise of 4.4 % in its market share (from 17.7% in 2005 to 21.1% in 2006). There was also an increase from 6.3% to 7.4% in Sony Ericsson’s sales in this period.
In the contrary, the market share of Samsung decreased by almost 1% to 11.8% in 2006. L.G. sales also declined, from 6.7% in 2005 to 6.3% in 2006. The global market share of BenQ Mobile fell to just 2.4% in 2006, a decline of 2.5% from the previous year. Finally, there was a fall in the market share of other manufacturers by 3% to 16.2% in 2006.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-12-02 | sherin rijo | 84 | view |
- Early technological developments brought more benefits and changes to people s life than the recent technological developments To what extent do you agree or disagree 79
- The graph below shows Internet users as a percentage of population in USA Mexico and Canada from 1999 to 2009 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparison where relevant 65
- Newspapers have an enormous influence on people s opinions and ideas Why is it Do you think it is a positive or negative situation 72
- The table shows the worldwide market share of the mobile phone market for manufacturers in the years 2005 and 2006.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.The table compares mobile phone 67
- Nowadays people always throw the old thing away when they buy new things and we are living in a throwaway society What factors cause this phenomenon What problem does leads to 92
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, so, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 7.0 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 33.7804878049 118% => 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: 832.0 965.302439024 86% => OK
No of words: 184.0 196.424390244 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.52173913043 4.92477711251 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.68302321012 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.31093566914 2.65546596893 87% => OK
Unique words: 96.0 106.607317073 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.521739130435 0.547539520022 95% => OK
syllable_count: 223.2 283.868780488 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.2 1.45097560976 83% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.114634146341 0% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 8.94146341463 123% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.4926829268 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 24.1030844019 43.030603864 56% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 75.6363636364 112.824112599 67% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.7272727273 22.9334400587 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.18181818182 5.23603664747 42% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 3.70975609756 270% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.09268292683 24% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.338784660565 0.215688989381 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.148844063676 0.103423049105 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.120360487906 0.0843802449381 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.258717145336 0.15604864568 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.144204577393 0.0819641961636 176% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.2 13.2329268293 62% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 89.08 61.2550243902 145% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 4.8 10.3012195122 47% => Flesch kincaid grade is low.
coleman_liau_index: 8.64 11.4140731707 76% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.43 8.06136585366 92% => OK
difficult_words: 35.0 40.7170731707 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.4329268293 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.9970731707 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.