"British people made calls with national and international- fixed line for around 35 billion minutes in 1995, which was at least 17 times the..."

[hardyweineberg]

"British people made calls with national and international- fixed line for around 35 billion minutes in 1995, which was at least 17 times the figure for mobile phones in that year."

"The total minutes of calls made using national and international-fixed lines then rose gradually to just above 60 in 2002, but the figure for mobiles escalated to over 40 billion minutes at the end of the period after witnessing a slight but steady increase to roughly 13 billion minutes in 1999. "

1) Is it grammatical to use "which" to modify a slightly far away noun, as I did in the first sentence ?

2) Is the second sentence grammatically correct?

3) I used "calls made using ..." and "calls made with..." in those sentences. Do they have the same meaning, and are both correct?

 

[emsr2d2]

I'm not really clear what you're trying to say. I'm going to try and simplify it. Tell me if I've got the right idea.

In 1995, British people made 35 billion minutes of landline calls (national and international). That was 17 times the number of mobile calls they made that year. However, by 1999, mobile calls accounted for 13 billion minutes. By 2002, landline calls amounted to 60 billion minutes but mobile calls hit 40 billion minutes that year.

1. "Which" is OK where it is in your version.
2. It's grammatically correct but it's messy, especially jumping from 1995 to 2002 and then back to 1999.
3. Both "calls made using a landline/mobile" and "calls made a landline/mobile" are possible. However, as you can see from my précis above, it's more natural to use "landline calls" and "mobile calls".

 

[hardyweineberg]

I'm not really clear what you're trying to say. I'm going to try and simplify it. Tell me if I've got the right idea.

In 1995, British people made 35 billion minutes of landline calls (national and international). That was 17 times the figure for mobile calls they made that year. However, by 1999, mobile calls accounted for 13 billion minutes. By 2002, landline calls amounted to 60 billion minutes but mobile calls hit 40 billion minutes that year.

1. "Which" is OK where it is in your version.
2. It's grammatically correct but it's messy, especially jumping from 1995 to 2002 and then back to 1999.
3. Both "calls made using a landline/mobile" and "calls made a landline/mobile" are possible. However, as you can see from my précis above, it's more natural to use "landline calls" and "mobile calls".

Apart from that change I made, our sentences have exactly the same meaning. But I was advised to use advanced/ complex structures, so right now I try to put much information in my sentences.

 

[emsr2d2]

Apart from that change I made, our sentences have exactly the same meaning.

What change are you referring to?

But However, I was advised to use advanced/complex structures, so right now I am trying to put much a lot of information in my sentences.

Who advised you to do that?

 

[hardyweineberg]

What change are you referring to?

Who advised you to do that?

What change are you referring to?

Who advised you to do that?

1) I just realized I didn't post it, but I just edited my previous post and added it.

2) An English teacher and IELTS tutor.

 

[Tarheel]

I use complex structures only when it comes naturally.

ELS learners often bite off more than they can chew, using sentences that are confusing. I often advise them to write shorter, simpler sentences. (You have to walk before you can run.)

 

[tedmc]

2) An English teacher and IELTS tutor.

I am surprised they advise you to make your sentences complex/complicated. I don't think examiners would be impressed with "style over clarity".

 

[hardyweineberg]

I am surprised they advise you to make your sentences complex/complicated. I don't think examiners would be impressed with "style over clarity".

I get what you are saying, but I think that long sentence(the one I posted) is not difficult to understand; the idea in the sentence was clear

 

[tedmc]

I get what you are saying, but I think that long sentence(the one I posted) is not difficult to understand; the idea in the sentence was clear

It is not very clear and takes some time to figure out. There are three variables. The year should be have been written first, followed by number of calls using landline, then the number using mobile. emsr2d2's rewrite using shorter sentences is clearer.
Long sentences are not better than short ones.

 

[hardyweineberg]

It is not very clear and takes some time to figure out. There are three variables. The year should be have been written first, followed by number of calls using landline, then the number using mobile. emsr2d2's rewrite using shorter sentences is clearer.
Long sentences are not better than short ones.

Is this what you mean?

"By 2002, the total minutes of calls made using national and international-fixed lines had risen gradually to just above 60, but the figure for mobiles had escalated to over 40 billion minutes after witnessing a slight but steady increase to roughly 13 billion minutes in 1999."