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 graph gives information about the tonnes of UK goods transported in 4 ways in 28 years.
It is evident an upward trend in the graph. The tonnes of goods transported by separate modes increased from 1974 to 2002. Moreover, the most preferred way to transport goods was by road. Its data rose from 70 in 1974 to roughly 100 tonnes in 2002, ranking first for 28 years straight.
Pipeline and water showed similar patterns between 1974 and 1990 until different fluctuations occurred in the next dozen years. The quantity of pipeline-transported goods increased gradually in the first four years but remained the lowest of all modes in 28 years. Compared with the pipeline's data, the ratio for water was higher by nearly 35% in 1974. It rose to 40% in 1978, slightly higher than the 1974's data. Both modes experienced a surge four years later; the part of goods transported by pipeline increased from 5 to 15 tonnes, whereas the data for water-transported goods grew 20% more than the previous statistics of 40 tonnes. Moreover, the data for both modes remained unchanged for ten years until the number of waterway goods went downward in 1998 before rising again. Yet, the tonnes of goods transported by pipeline surpassed 20 in 1994 and remained unchanged for nearly eight years.
The figures for goods delivered by road and rail, despite a slight difference between 1974 and 1978, were roughly the same during the next 24 years. The data for cargo went back to the start point with nearly 50 tonnes in 1978 whereas the data for rail goods dropped by half in the next four years. Moreover, both modes fluctuated from 1986 to 2002. The cargo data rose to more than 80 tonnes and slightly dropped before reaching approximately 100 tonnes. The rail goods data experienced the same fluctuation style and surpassed more than 40 tonnes in 2002.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-03-03 | Sang Sang Sang | 73 | view |
| 2024-03-03 | Sang Sang Sang | 73 | view |
| 2023-07-18 | cookie12 | 78 | view |
| 2023-06-10 | taocute.s1 | 74 | view |
| 2023-06-09 | Roy An | 11 | view |
- The chart below compares the number of people per household by percentage in the UK in 1981 and 2001 73
- The diagrams show changes to a medical centre from 2008 to 2010 73
- The diagram below shows the manufacturing process for making sugar from sugar cane 84
- In some countries today many people decide to have their first child when they are older What are the reasons Do you think the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages 73
- The diagram below shows the development of cutting tools in the Stone Age Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 67
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 283, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'pipelines'' or 'pipeline's'?
Suggestion: pipelines'; pipeline's
...ll modes in 28 years. Compared with the pipelines data, the ratio for water was higher by...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 528, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the same fluctuation style and surpassed more than 40 tonnes in 2002.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, moreover, whereas
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 7.0 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 6.8 118% => OK
Relative clauses : 0.0 3.15609756098 0% => OK
Pronoun: 3.0 5.60731707317 54% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 33.7804878049 157% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1526.0 965.302439024 158% => OK
No of words: 316.0 196.424390244 161% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.82911392405 4.92477711251 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21620550194 3.73543355544 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62811454467 2.65546596893 99% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 106.607317073 137% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.462025316456 0.547539520022 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 421.2 283.868780488 148% => 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: 12.0 4.33902439024 277% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 3.36585365854 30% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 8.94146341463 190% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.4926829268 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.8050099045 43.030603864 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.7647058824 112.824112599 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5882352941 22.9334400587 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.94117647059 5.23603664747 37% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 1.69756097561 118% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 3.70975609756 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.09268292683 269% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.228994513213 0.215688989381 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0933606267878 0.103423049105 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0714629242311 0.0843802449381 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.175974406493 0.15604864568 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0483375209773 0.0819641961636 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 13.2329268293 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 78.59 61.2550243902 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.8 10.3012195122 66% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.73 11.4140731707 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.28 8.06136585366 90% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 40.7170731707 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 11.4329268293 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.9970731707 84% => OK
text_standard: 7.0 11.0658536585 63% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.