The given bar chart provides the information about the time spent by Finland’s citizens in different motivated telephone calls over a period of 9 years, from 1995 to 2004. The minutes spend during calls differentiated in base of the year and also of their specific reason.
At a first glance, local calls proved to be the more frequent ones respect to others even if during the considered period have experienced a fluctuating behaviour. In fact, the minutes spent by people in local phone calls passed from 12000 millions in 1995 to 2001, year in which the maximum value was reached. From 2001, the number of minutes steeply dipped to 12000 in 2004.
As the data suggest, national and international landlines and mobile calls significantly increased between 1995 and 2004. People who did national and international calls spent around 6000 millions of minutes in 1995 and this number constantly rose up to 10000 millions of minutes in 2004. The mobiles’ figure showed the same but more steep trend reaching just a little less than 10000 millions of minutes in 2004.
Overall, the amount of time occupied in phone calls generally increased in time even if the local landlines’ occurrences decrease in favour of the other types of calls.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 184, Rule ID: CD_DOZENS_OF[1]
Message: Use a singular form of the numeral here: '6000 million'.
Suggestion: 6000 million
...al and international calls spent around 6000 millions of minutes in 1995 and this number constan...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 255, Rule ID: CD_DOZENS_OF[1]
Message: Use a singular form of the numeral here: '10000 million'.
Suggestion: 10000 million
...5 and this number constantly rose up to 10000 millions of minutes in 2004. The mobiles’ figure sh...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 380, Rule ID: CD_DOZENS_OF[1]
Message: Use a singular form of the numeral here: '10000 million'.
Suggestion: 10000 million
... trend reaching just a little less than 10000 millions of minutes in 2004. Overall, the amoun...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, so, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 2.0 7.0 29% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 2.0 5.60731707317 36% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 33.7804878049 124% => 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: 1046.0 965.302439024 108% => OK
No of words: 207.0 196.424390244 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05314009662 4.92477711251 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.79308509922 3.73543355544 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67115249669 2.65546596893 101% => OK
Unique words: 113.0 106.607317073 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545893719807 0.547539520022 100% => OK
syllable_count: 301.5 283.868780488 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.33902439024 138% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.8201729525 43.030603864 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.222222222 112.824112599 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 22.9334400587 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.66666666667 5.23603664747 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 1.69756097561 177% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 3.70975609756 216% => 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: 0.250384806342 0.215688989381 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.108731268419 0.103423049105 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0632580762324 0.0843802449381 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140487254382 0.15604864568 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0721708211127 0.0819641961636 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.2329268293 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 61.2550243902 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.3012195122 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.31 11.4140731707 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.06136585366 104% => OK
difficult_words: 47.0 40.7170731707 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.4329268293 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.0658536585 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.