The graph below shows the quantities of goods transported in the UK between 1974 and 2002 by four different modes of transport.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The line chart indicated the amount of commodities transported via distinct kinds of ways: road, water, rail and pipeline in the UK from 1974 to 2002.
Overall, road was the main method which was used to transport goods in the UK and the quantities of goods transported by four ways in the UK increased during a period of 28 years.
Looking at the details, road was the most popular mode of transport to move goods in the UK. There was a significant increase in the total million tonnes of commodities by road from 70 in 1994 to nearly 100 in 2002. The same trend was true or both water and pipeline goods carrying. Watter shipping distributed about 40 million tonnes between 1994 to 1978. This figure raised to in the vicinity of 60 million tonnes in 1982 and this level remained for over a decade. There was a decrease to about 50 million tonnes in 1998 before growing to more 60 million tonnes in 2002. The quantities of goods transported by pipeline also went up considerably from about 5 million tonnes in 1974 to above 20 million tonnes in 2002.
By contrast, the amount of commodities shipped through rail experienced a continuos variation. It was about 40 million tonnes in 1974 then this statistic fell to less than 30 million tonnes in 1995. By 1999, the quantity was at 40 million tonnes again and increased slightly to 41 million tonnes in 2002. It accounted a small change indeed, only about 1 million tonnes over the year.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 549, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tonnes in 1998 before growing to more 60 million tonnes in 2002. The quantities o...
^^
Line 5, column 627, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...es of goods transported by pipeline also went up considerably from about 5 millio...
^^
Line 7, column 75, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'continuos'' or 'continuo's'?
Suggestion: continuos'; continuo's
...ties shipped through rail experienced a continuos variation. It was about 40 million tonn...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, look, so, then
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 7.0 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 5.0 5.60731707317 89% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 33.7804878049 175% => 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: 1190.0 965.302439024 123% => OK
No of words: 256.0 196.424390244 130% => OK
Chars per words: 4.6484375 4.92477711251 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0 3.73543355544 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53210585454 2.65546596893 95% => OK
Unique words: 124.0 106.607317073 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.484375 0.547539520022 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 336.6 283.868780488 119% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.114634146341 0% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 13.0 8.94146341463 145% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.4926829268 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.3751871208 43.030603864 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.5384615385 112.824112599 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6923076923 22.9334400587 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.23076923077 5.23603664747 43% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 1.69756097561 177% => OK
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: 7.0 4.09268292683 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.157206611107 0.215688989381 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.068472211044 0.103423049105 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0768167602407 0.0843802449381 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133493604912 0.15604864568 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0786792336271 0.0819641961636 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.3 13.2329268293 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 77.57 61.2550243902 127% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 10.3012195122 70% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.69 11.4140731707 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.05 8.06136585366 87% => OK
difficult_words: 40.0 40.7170731707 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.4329268293 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.9970731707 87% => 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.