the graph below shows average annual expenditure on cell phone or Residential phone service between 2001and 2010.
The given line graph depicts the average cost that people spent on mobile phone and land-line phone services annually over 10 period. The data is calibrated in dollars.
The most striking feature to be observed is that the trend of spent more cost on mobile phones increased every year.
It can be vividly seen that from 2001 to 2005, the expenditure of Mobile phones followed an increasing trend rising from 200 to 500 dollars. Further, it remained same for next two year after that in 2010, it reached at peak level with 700 dollars.
Turning to rest of description, in 2001, people spent 700 dollars on land-line service after that it decreased slightly and reached at 400 dollars in 2010.As far as, comparison are concerned, in 2006 spending cost on both the services were same .further, the difference in starting spending was 500 dollars where in 2010 it reduced 200 dollars.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... The data is calibrated in dollars. The most striking feature to be observed is...
^^^
Line 3, column 73, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...observed is that the trend of spent more cost on mobile phones increased every ye...
^^
Line 7, column 156, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: As
...htly and reached at 400 dollars in 2010.As far as, comparison are concerned, in 20...
^^
Line 7, column 245, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ding cost on both the services were same .further, the difference in starting spe...
^^
Line 7, column 255, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...on both the services were same .further, the difference in starting spending was ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 7.0 100% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 6.8 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 3.15609756098 190% => OK
Pronoun: 10.0 5.60731707317 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 26.0 33.7804878049 77% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 3.97073170732 50% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 740.0 965.302439024 77% => OK
No of words: 151.0 196.424390244 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.90066225166 4.92477711251 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.50545371207 3.73543355544 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43616812542 2.65546596893 92% => OK
Unique words: 93.0 106.607317073 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.615894039735 0.547539520022 112% => OK
syllable_count: 210.6 283.868780488 74% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 3.36585365854 59% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 6.0 8.94146341463 67% => 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: 25.0 22.4926829268 111% => OK
Sentence length SD: 95.5604811392 43.030603864 222% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 123.333333333 112.824112599 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.1666666667 22.9334400587 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.0 5.23603664747 19% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 1.69756097561 295% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 3.70975609756 81% => 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: 0.19557627155 0.215688989381 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0908118292379 0.103423049105 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0876309343933 0.0843802449381 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122792463601 0.15604864568 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0763146444327 0.0819641961636 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.2329268293 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 63.02 61.2550243902 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.3012195122 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.44 11.4140731707 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.43 8.06136585366 105% => OK
difficult_words: 34.0 40.7170731707 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.4329268293 66% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.9970731707 109% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.0658536585 72% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
More content wanted.
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.