The first graph shows the number of train passengers from 2000 to 2009; the second compares the percentage of trains running on time and target in the period.
The upper chart illustrates the changes in the number of passengers traveling by trains and the lower graph shows the proportion of trains running punctually in a 10-year-period from 2000 to 2009 compared to the target.
Overall, it can be seen that the number of travelers using trains showed an unsteady upward trend. The figure for train running on time also saw the same minor fluctuation.
In the first four years, the number of train travelers rose from around more than 40 million, and then turned to its first peak of about 37 million in 2002 before dropping to just below its starting number in 2003. Also in that period, the proportions of trains running on time rose sharply from 92% to 95.5%. During the next three years, there was both enormous growth in the rate of train passengers and trains running on time, while the train travelers reached a peak of more than 45 million people in 2005. In terms of running efficiency, the rate was 96% in 2004, but later fell drastically to 92% in 2006
In the last three years, while the number of passengers stabilized around 43%, compared to the significant increase of trains running on time, with the gradual improvement and eventually the highest point of 97%
You have not read my advice. You keep making the same mistakes.
Your learning strategy is not a good on. You have posted many essays, but it is not clear that you are improving at all. You have to learn from your mistakes, not just post another essay repeating the same errors all over again.
The upper chart (wrong word.) illustrates (wrong word, again. You repeat this same mistake for every Task 1) the changes (Incorrect. It does not plot the changes. It plots absolute numbers. You can then calculate the changes by using subtraction, can't you?) in the number of passengers traveling by trains and the lower graph shows the percentage proportion of trains running punctually in a 10-year-period (no hyphens) from 2000 to 2009 compared to as well as the target.
Overall, it can be seen that (Delete. No information in those words) the number of travelers using trains showed an unsteady a general upward trend. The figure (wrong word. Read my advice) for train running on time also saw (wrong word. Numbers do not have eyes. How do they see with no eyes? Read my advice. ) the same minor fluctuation. (wrong word. Read my advice. I demonstrate what "fluctuation" is. What you see on the graph is not fluctuation.)
In the first four years, 2000-2004, (use values so the the reader know exactly which years you are describing.) the number of train travelers rose from around more (Those words are not used together.) than 40 million, (Incorrect. The first number is about 36 million. 36 is not more than 40, is it?) and then turned to its first peak of about 37 million (incorrect. A peak is the highest point on a graph. The highest point is not 37. ) in 2002 before dropping to just below its starting number in 2003. Also in that period, the proportions percentage of trains running on time rose sharply from 92% to 96 95.5%. During the next three years, 2004-2007, there was both enormous (enormous would be 50% or more. There is a slight growth, followed by a decline.) growth in the rate (wrong word. Read my advice) of train passengers and trains running on time, while the train travelers reached a peak of more than 45 million people in 2005. In terms of running efficiency, the percentage rate was 96% in 2004, but later fell drastically to 92% in 2006
In the last three years, 2007-2009, while the number of passengers stabilized around 43%, (43 percent of what?) compared to the significant increase of in trains running on time, with the gradual improvement and eventually the highest point of 97%.
You never mentioned that train company's target for punctuality. That is a very important point that you missed. When were the trains doing better than the target, and when were they doing worse? What year was the largest shortfall?
When you write about changes in numbers, use values rather than "drama" words like "enormous". After all, your report is for a maths professor. For example, the low number (in millions) for train passengers was 37 in 2003 and it was about 10 higher at the peak. 2005.So how large was this increase? It was 10/37 or 27%. Since it happened over two years, that is about 13% per year.But if you consider the growth between 2002 and 2005, the value is much different, since the difference is only about 4 million.And over the whole decade, the net growth was quite insignificant, only around 10%.