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 graph reveals information on the quantities of goods delivered by four selected kinds of transport (Rail, Water, Road, and Pipeline) in the UK during the 28 years 1974-2002. Units are measured in million tonnes (MT)
From an overall perspective, one of the most outstanding features is that there was an upward trend in figures given for Road, Water, and Pipeline, whereas the corresponding figure of Rail fluctuated throughout the whole period 1974-2002.
By the year 1974, the figure recorded for Road appeared to be by far the highest one, with approximately 70 MT which was followed by that of a similar level for both Water and Rail, with almost 40 MT. Nevertheless, the lowest quantity of delivering goods among the four chosen means of transport was found to be in Pipeline, with only 5 MT.
Surprisingly, the figure observed for Road was consistently determined to be the largest throughout the whole period 1974-2002, increasing dramatically to almost 99 MT in the year 2002 – a huge growth of 1.5 times.
Conversely, there was a substantial increase in the figure given for Pipeline during the period 1974-2002, to almost 21 MT, but it is constantly stood at the lowest one among the four recognized modes of transport.
It is interesting to note that Water’s figure rose significantly for the first 8 years 1974-1982, to almost 58 MT then maintained at this level for the next 16 years until 1998 before going up moderately to nearly 62 MT by the year 2002.
In comparison with the figure of Rail, this was observed to be well under 45 MT, ranging from almost 24 MT to roughly 41 MT.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 204, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a million'.
Suggestion: a million
... years 1974-2002. Units are measured in million tonnes MT From an overall perspective...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 4, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[2]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: comparison,
...to nearly 62 MT by the year 2002. In comparison with the figure of Rail, this was obser...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, first, if, nevertheless, so, then, well, whereas
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 7.0 200% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 6.8 59% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 7.0 5.60731707317 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 51.0 33.7804878049 151% => 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: 1345.0 965.302439024 139% => OK
No of words: 277.0 196.424390244 141% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.85559566787 4.92477711251 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07962216107 3.73543355544 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87750317147 2.65546596893 108% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 106.607317073 141% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.541516245487 0.547539520022 99% => OK
syllable_count: 379.8 283.868780488 134% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 0.482926829268 621% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 3.36585365854 238% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 34.0 22.4926829268 151% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 48.101292862 43.030603864 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 168.125 112.824112599 149% => OK
Words per sentence: 34.625 22.9334400587 151% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.125 5.23603664747 155% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 3.83414634146 183% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 1.69756097561 118% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 1.13902439024 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.09268292683 49% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.147764545826 0.215688989381 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0938168344813 0.103423049105 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0949939632807 0.0843802449381 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0916645317462 0.15604864568 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.08303354149 0.0819641961636 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.8 13.2329268293 142% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.89 61.2550243902 88% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.51609756098 172% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 10.3012195122 138% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.5 11.4140731707 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.06136585366 105% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 40.7170731707 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 11.4329268293 157% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.6 10.9970731707 142% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.