The charts show the main methods of transport of people travelling to one university in 2004 and 2009.
Summarise the information be selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The pie charts compare the percentage of students using five different ways of transportation, namely Car, Train, Bus, Bicycle and Walking, to travel to a particular university during 2004 and 2009.
Looking at the graph, it is immediately obvious that moving by train was the least favoured form of transportation. Besides, there was a change, from cars to buses, for the most commonly used form of transport over the five year period.
In 2004, just over half of the learners travelled to the university by cars, followed by taking a bus accounted for a third of the cake. The remaining students rode a bike, went on foot or took a train, with the figures being 9%, 4% and 3%, respectively.
However, with the car parking fee in the college increased in 2006. On the other hand, the construction of a new bus stop in the university in 2008, therefore, the number of students driving to the school dropped to 28% in 2009, while the number of pupils going by all other methods rose. Details, those commuting by bus climbed to 46%, bicycle user's went up to 16% and both train travellers and walker experienced a trivial increase by 1% and 2% sequentially.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-31 | Nguyen Manh Dung | 78 | view |
| 2019-12-31 | Nguyen Manh Dung | 78 | view |
- Maintaining public libraries is a waste of money since computer technology can replace their functions Do you agree or disagree 70
- The society would benefit from a ban on all forms of advertising because it serves no useful purpose and can even be damaging To what extent do you agree or disagree 84
- The given maps show two di erent underground passage frameworks for autos in two Australian refers to 78
- Average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per person, 1967-2007 73
- The bar chart below shows the percentage of Australian men and women in different age groups who did regular physical activity in 2010. 67
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, however, if, look, therefore, third, while, on the other hand
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 : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 3.0 5.60731707317 54% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 33.7804878049 115% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 959.0 965.302439024 99% => OK
No of words: 202.0 196.424390244 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.74752475248 4.92477711251 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.76996954942 3.73543355544 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78981370064 2.65546596893 105% => OK
Unique words: 128.0 106.607317073 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.633663366337 0.547539520022 116% => OK
syllable_count: 279.9 283.868780488 99% => 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: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 3.36585365854 178% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.4926829268 111% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.8401537145 43.030603864 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.875 112.824112599 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.25 22.9334400587 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.75 5.23603664747 167% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
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: 0.114472638026 0.215688989381 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0442746376498 0.103423049105 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0406705559849 0.0843802449381 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0713567840185 0.15604864568 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0384675224607 0.0819641961636 47% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.2329268293 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 63.02 61.2550243902 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.3012195122 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.57 11.4140731707 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.06136585366 105% => OK
difficult_words: 46.0 40.7170731707 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.4329268293 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.9970731707 109% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.0658536585 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.