The table illustrates how the citizens in Houston, Texas commuted to work, and the bar chart delineates the travel problem they experience.
Looking from an overall perspective, the majority of people use cars, which is also the factor causing the most pollution. While the proportion of commuters riding bicycles or walking is the lowest, it is environmentally friendly. However, most young people choose to walk or cycle, whilst the average age of residents commuting by bus or train is the highest.
Looking at the table more closely, one can see that 48 percent of citizens commuting to work by personal car, and 11 percent of citizens going to work by sharing the car, making the car is the most popular form of means of conveyance in Houston. Although the proportion of people using the train or bus is second highest after the rate of people using a private car to work at 37 percent, it is a transportation solution with the highest average age of passengers at 47 years old, it is older than the average of residents using the private car and the sharing car 4 years old (43 years old) and 3 years old (44 years old) respectively. Nevertheless, just 4 percent of people commuting to work by bicycle or walk, but most people who choose this solution are young people, which is evidenced by the mean youngest age at 39 years old.
According to the bar chart, it is apparent that around 0.32 kilograms per person per kilometer of carbon dioxide emissions for commute alone by car, it is the witness that this is the most polluting way. While citizens traveling to work by the sharing car produce carbon dioxide is approximately 0.08 kilograms per person per kilometer, those using public transport product about 0.01 kilograms per person per kilometer. Only people commuting by bicycle or walking do not contribute to environmental pollution when absolutely no carbon dioxide emissions are released.
- Information about Travelling to Work in Houston Texas and CO2 Emissions from Different Forms of Transport 81
- Information about Travelling to Work in Houston Texas and CO2 Emissions from Different Forms of Transport 56
- Information about Travelling to Work in Houston Texas and CO2 Emissions from Different Forms of Transport 61
- The Table and the Bar chart below give information about travelling to work in Houston Texas Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant
- The Table and the Bar chart below give information about travelling to work in Houston Texas Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, look, nevertheless, second, so, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 7.0 214% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 6.8 162% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 3.15609756098 222% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 12.0 5.60731707317 214% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 33.7804878049 121% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 3.97073170732 227% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1552.0 965.302439024 161% => OK
No of words: 324.0 196.424390244 165% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.79012345679 4.92477711251 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24264068712 3.73543355544 114% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6932545136 2.65546596893 101% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 106.607317073 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.45987654321 0.547539520022 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 488.7 283.868780488 172% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
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: 1.0 8.94146341463 11% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 324.0 22.4926829268 1440% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 0.0 43.030603864 0% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 1552.0 112.824112599 1376% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 324.0 22.9334400587 1413% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 57.0 5.23603664747 1089% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 3.70975609756 27% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.09268292683 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.126258604619 0.215688989381 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126258604619 0.103423049105 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0843802449381 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0883959909178 0.15604864568 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0563735555318 0.0819641961636 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 163.1 13.2329268293 1233% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -248.92 61.2550243902 -406% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 0.0 6.51609756098 0% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 128.5 10.3012195122 1247% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 11.98 11.4140731707 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 22.92 8.06136585366 284% => Dale chall readability score is high.
difficult_words: 66.0 40.7170731707 162% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 55.0 11.4329268293 481% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 131.6 10.9970731707 1197% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 132.0 11.0658536585 1193% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.