The first line graph demonstrates the figure of train passengers between 2000 and 2009, the second line graph represents the proportion of trains running on time compared with target.
Overall, it is obvious that the number of frown passengers witnessed a steady increase while there was an erratic trend in the percentage of trains running on time compared to target staying constant over the period.
According to the first graph, from 2000 to 2003, the figure for train passengers tended to oscillate around 35-42 millions. However, in 2003, there was a considerable growth in the people going by train to 2005, reaching a peak at 47 millions. Furthermore, the number continued to decrease gradually to 42 millions in 2009.
As is observed from the second graph, the target percentage stabilized throughout the whole time frame at 95%. In 2000, the rate of trains running on time was 92% and it grew up to reach the target in 2002. The proportion of train running on time continued to climb to 2004 and then undergone an enormous downward trend to 92% in 2006, much lower than the target proportion. On the contrary, from 2006 to 2009, the trains running on time percentage rocketed to the highest point at 97% in 2009, 2% higher than target.
- Some people think it is more important to spend money on roads and motorways than on public transport systems To what extend do you agree 67
- The graph below shows the population of particular country by age group starting in 1960 and including a forecast to 2040 78
- Some people believe that studying at university or college is the best route to a successful career while others believe that it is better to get a job straight after school Discuss both views and give your opinion 89
- Some people think the increasing business and cultural contact between countries brings many positive effects Others say it causes the loss of national identities Discuss both of these views and give your own opinion Give reasons for your answer and inclu 78
- The charts below give information about different types of waste disposed of in one country in 1960 and 2011 87
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, second, then, while, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 7.0 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 6.8 44% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 1.0 3.15609756098 32% => OK
Pronoun: 3.0 5.60731707317 54% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 33.7804878049 136% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1042.0 965.302439024 108% => OK
No of words: 213.0 196.424390244 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89201877934 4.92477711251 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.82027741392 3.73543355544 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59400611585 2.65546596893 98% => OK
Unique words: 109.0 106.607317073 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.511737089202 0.547539520022 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 284.4 283.868780488 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.45097560976 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.33902439024 184% => 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: 9.0 8.94146341463 101% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.711827378 43.030603864 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.777777778 112.824112599 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6666666667 22.9334400587 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.22222222222 5.23603664747 138% => 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: 4.0 4.09268292683 98% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.621102036534 0.215688989381 288% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.245966421636 0.103423049105 238% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.127259193969 0.0843802449381 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.37096105739 0.15604864568 238% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.100307421174 0.0819641961636 122% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.2329268293 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 73.51 61.2550243902 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 10.3012195122 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.38 11.4140731707 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.74 8.06136585366 96% => OK
difficult_words: 40.0 40.7170731707 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.4329268293 114% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.0658536585 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.