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 line graph gives information about the average money spent annually on mobile phone services, and national and international landline services in America from 2001 to 2010.
In general, it can be seen that the expenditure people spent on mobile phones and national fixed line increased significantly, while national fixed-line services had a downward trend. Also, the figure for international fixed-line services was the lowest during the period.
In the first half of the period, the figure for Americans spending on national landline phones was the highest number, and $500 more than mobile phones and international fixed-line services, at $700 and $200, respectively. Over the next five years, the number of people using national fixed-line services significantly fell by $150, while yearly spending on overseas landline services stayed unchanged at $300. Americans paid $100 more in 2005 than in 2002.
The expenditure on national fixed-line services continually decreased by $100, while US consumers spent $450 less on overseas landline services than cell phone ones. Finally, the average yearly spending on mobile phones outlooked that of national fixed-line phone services and hit its peak at over $750 in 2010.
- The chart below shows the number of jobs in tourism arelated industries in one UL city between 1089 and 2009 70
- Process orange product 84
- 12 03 2022 Fewer people do farming work in rural areas WHy Should young people be encouraged to do farming work 89
- Childhood obesity has become a serious problem in recent years What are the primary causes of this What measures should be taken to reduce childhood obesity 61
- 3 11 2016 Schools should not force chldren to learn a foreign language To what extent do you agree or disagree 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, if, look, so, while, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 7.0 43% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 33.7804878049 80% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 3.97073170732 25% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1022.0 965.302439024 106% => OK
No of words: 188.0 196.424390244 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.43617021277 4.92477711251 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.70287850203 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87216311509 2.65546596893 108% => OK
Unique words: 95.0 106.607317073 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.505319148936 0.547539520022 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 322.2 283.868780488 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.45097560976 117% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.33902439024 138% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.07073170732 280% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.482926829268 414% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.9805388799 43.030603864 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.75 112.824112599 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5 22.9334400587 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.625 5.23603664747 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 3.70975609756 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.09268292683 98% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.423410663829 0.215688989381 196% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.208445893618 0.103423049105 202% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.116703839586 0.0843802449381 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.304932289974 0.15604864568 195% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.098456347361 0.0819641961636 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 13.2329268293 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 61.2550243902 65% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 10.3012195122 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.57 11.4140731707 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.05 8.06136585366 100% => OK
difficult_words: 39.0 40.7170731707 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.4329268293 127% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.0658536585 136% => 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.