The chart below shows the total number of minutes (in billions) of telephone calls in the UK, divided into three categories, from 1995-2002.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The given bar graph represents the time taken by united Kingdom calls by three different classes such as local, national and international as well mobiles between 1995 to 2002. The units of time is billions .
Overall, there was gradual increase in the time taken by national and international and mobiles calls. However, the minutes of local calls first increased and then moderately decreased.
Going back to the significant consideration of graph, it is clear that the more minutes was take by local calls throughout the time period. In 1995, the local calls took just over 70 billion minutes which went up 90 billion in 1998 and 1999. After that it fell down to above 70 in 2002. On the other hand, there was slightly increase in national and international calls from just under 40 billion minutes in 1995 to approximately 60 billion minutes in 2002. The figure shows that less time was taken by mobiles which went up dramatically from 1995 to 2002 starting from well under 5 to around 50 billion minutes.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 196, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[6]
Message: Possible agreement error. You should probably use: 'are'.
Suggestion: are
...between 1995 to 2002. The units of time is billions . Overall, there was gra...
^^
Line 1, column 207, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...5 to 2002. The units of time is billions . Overall, there was gradual increa...
^^
Line 1, column 210, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...o 2002. The units of time is billions . Overall, there was gradual increase in ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 9, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nits of time is billions . Overall, there was gradual increase in the time t...
^^
Line 3, column 188, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ncreased and then moderately decreased. Going back to the significant considerat...
^^^
Line 4, column 243, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “After” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ch went up 90 billion in 1998 and 1999. After that it fell down to above 70 in 2002. ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, then, well, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 7.0 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 33.7804878049 107% => 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: 840.0 965.302439024 87% => OK
No of words: 173.0 196.424390244 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.85549132948 4.92477711251 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.62669911048 3.73543355544 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60696648936 2.65546596893 98% => OK
Unique words: 93.0 106.607317073 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.537572254335 0.547539520022 98% => OK
syllable_count: 244.8 283.868780488 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => 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: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.4926829268 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.7023237651 43.030603864 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.3333333333 112.824112599 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2222222222 22.9334400587 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.44444444444 5.23603664747 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 6.0 1.69756097561 353% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 3.70975609756 162% => 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: 0.193280339022 0.215688989381 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0871025627845 0.103423049105 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0555672173271 0.0843802449381 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118795414698 0.15604864568 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.069106533078 0.0819641961636 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 13.2329268293 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 61.2550243902 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 10.3012195122 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.91 11.4140731707 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.32 8.06136585366 91% => OK
difficult_words: 30.0 40.7170731707 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.4329268293 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.9970731707 87% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => 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.