The following bar chart shows the different modes of transport used to
travel to and from work in one European city in 1960, 1980 and 2000.
Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features
and make comparisons where relevant.
The chart illustrates how travellers commuted to work in a European city in three different
years from 1960 to 2000.
Overall, the proportion of commuters who used cars increased steadily over the period,
whereas the percentage of people who travelled by bike or on foot fell dramatically.
In 1960, almost 35% of travellers walked to work. The proportion of those who used bikes
and buses was 25% and 18% respectively, while in contrast only about 5% of people
travelled by car. However, in 1980 the percentage of people who went to work by bus
reached 26%, making it the most popular means of transport in that year. Although the
proportion of commuters who used cars to go to work saw an increase to around 23%, the
percentage of travellers who used bikes fell to 20%, and the figure for those who went on
foot was slightly lower at 17%.
Over 35% of travellers used cars to go to work in this city in 2000, overtaking the figures for
bus users (16%). The proportion of those who travelled on foot and by bike decreased to 9%
and 6% respectively.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-04-25 | Poinsettia03 | 81 | view |
- The chart below shows the annual number of rentals and sales(in various formats) of films from a particular store between 2002 to 2011.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 78
- The following bar chart shows the different modes of transport used to travel to and from work in one European city in 1960 1980 and 2000 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 81
- The pictures below show the recycling process of wasted glass bottles Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 83
- The following bar chart shows the different modes of transport used to travel to and from work in one European city in 1960 1980 and 2000 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 81
- The maps below show the village of Stokeford in 1930 and 2010 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 87
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, whereas, while, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 2.0 7.0 29% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 3.15609756098 285% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 33.7804878049 127% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 3.97073170732 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 883.0 965.302439024 91% => OK
No of words: 188.0 196.424390244 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.69680851064 4.92477711251 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.70287850203 3.73543355544 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68996992685 2.65546596893 101% => OK
Unique words: 97.0 106.607317073 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.515957446809 0.547539520022 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 255.6 283.868780488 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.482926829268 621% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.8503774295 43.030603864 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.375 112.824112599 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5 22.9334400587 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.23603664747 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 13.0 3.83414634146 339% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 3.70975609756 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.09268292683 73% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.192403722993 0.215688989381 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111929352812 0.103423049105 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0845916403306 0.0843802449381 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0846684927231 0.15604864568 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0709797154374 0.0819641961636 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.2329268293 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 61.2550243902 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.3012195122 96% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.28 11.4140731707 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.55 8.06136585366 94% => OK
difficult_words: 33.0 40.7170731707 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.4329268293 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.