The pie charts below show the devices people in the 18 to 25 age group use to watch television in Canada in two different years.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The given data indicated what types of devices used to watch television in Canada in 2009 and 2019 for the age groups . The devices including mobile phone, laptop, tablet, desktop computer, flat-screen TV and the conventional TV.
First of all, the most popular device that people use to watch TV in 2009 was conventional TV, it occupied 34 percent. By contrast, the lowest was the tablet which was only 5 percent in the graph. After a decade, the highest device that people use to watch TV which was a flat-screen TV, it counted 27 percent. In contrast, the lowest device that people use to watch TV which was conventional TV which was 4 percent in the data.
In addition, the proportion of conventional TV had the most significant changes in the data. From 34 percent which was the most popular device that people fond of watching television, it rapidly decreased to 4 percent in 2019. Moreover, flat-screen TV also had a remarkable increase during the given years. From 8 percent it all the way radically up the 27 percent in 2019.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 118, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...nada in 2009 and 2019 for the age groups . The devices including mobile phone, lap...
^^
Line 2, column 51, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
...ll, the most popular device that people use to watch TV in 2009 was conventional TV...
^^^
Line 2, column 245, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
... decade, the highest device that people use to watch TV which was a flat-screen TV,...
^^^
Line 2, column 355, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
...contrast, the lowest device that people use to watch TV which was conventional TV w...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, if, moreover, so, in addition, in contrast, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 7.0 100% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 6.8 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 3.15609756098 285% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 8.0 5.60731707317 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 25.0 33.7804878049 74% => 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: 855.0 965.302439024 89% => OK
No of words: 181.0 196.424390244 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.72375690608 4.92477711251 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.66791821706 3.73543355544 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71126427909 2.65546596893 102% => OK
Unique words: 86.0 106.607317073 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.475138121547 0.547539520022 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 243.9 283.868780488 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 1.53170731707 196% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.33902439024 161% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 3.36585365854 178% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.4926829268 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 21.0952601311 43.030603864 49% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 85.5 112.824112599 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1 22.9334400587 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.9 5.23603664747 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 1.69756097561 236% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 1.13902439024 176% => 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: 0.117350521242 0.215688989381 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.060978721202 0.103423049105 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0665003336429 0.0843802449381 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.098671573813 0.15604864568 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0503388299917 0.0819641961636 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.9 13.2329268293 75% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 78.59 61.2550243902 128% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.8 10.3012195122 66% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.8 11.4140731707 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.76 8.06136585366 96% => OK
difficult_words: 37.0 40.7170731707 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.4329268293 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.9970731707 84% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.0658536585 90% => 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.