The graph below shows the percentage of urban/suburban and rural households in England that had Internet access between 1999 and 2004
The bar chart compares the proportion of households who had access to the internet in the rural and urban areas in England from 1990 and 2004.
Overall, an upward trend can be seen in both urban/suburban areas and the countryside, and the rate of internet users in the city was always higher than that in rural regions.
In 1999, the percentage of people using the internet in urban areas was more than those in rural households, about 15% and 5% respectively, In the following 2 years, the rate of internet users living in the city increased significantly to around 40%, which were four times as high as the figure for those in the countryside, at about 10%
In 2002, the percentage of urban/suburban and rural households accessing the internet climbed to approximately 50% and 15% respectively. A year later, the figure for the latter was nearly twice as low as the figure for the former, at about 25% and 52% in 2003. In 2004, the rate of people living in rural regions who accessed the internet rose to around 35% while the proportion of those in the city reached at around 55%.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-11-18 | Rajan wahla | 59 | view |
- The graphs above give information about fast food consumption in England 61
- In many big cities in the world, the quality of life is decreasing. What are the causes and solutions for this? 84
- The graph below gives information about car ownership in Britain from 1971 to 2007 77
- In many big cities in the world the quality of life is decreasing What are the causes and solutions for this 40
- The graph below shows the percentage of urban suburban and rural households in England that had Internet access between 1999 and 2004 82
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 158, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... in the city was always higher than that in rural regions. In 1999, the percen...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 7.0 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 6.8 118% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 4.0 5.60731707317 71% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 33.7804878049 110% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 3.97073170732 50% => More nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 900.0 965.302439024 93% => OK
No of words: 192.0 196.424390244 98% => OK
Chars per words: 4.6875 4.92477711251 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.72241943641 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73956352971 2.65546596893 103% => OK
Unique words: 94.0 106.607317073 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.489583333333 0.547539520022 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 272.7 283.868780488 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.114634146341 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.33902439024 184% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 3.36585365854 208% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 5.0 8.94146341463 56% => 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: 38.0 22.4926829268 169% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 131.811076925 43.030603864 306% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 180.0 112.824112599 160% => OK
Words per sentence: 38.4 22.9334400587 167% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.8 5.23603664747 34% => 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 : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.09268292683 49% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.313520908588 0.215688989381 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.171614657284 0.103423049105 166% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.120890561848 0.0843802449381 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.208734215028 0.15604864568 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0908703745208 0.0819641961636 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.9 13.2329268293 150% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.83 61.2550243902 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 10.3012195122 153% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.51 11.4140731707 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.06136585366 101% => OK
difficult_words: 32.0 40.7170731707 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 11.4329268293 157% => OK
gunning_fog: 17.2 10.9970731707 156% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.0658536585 163% => 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.