Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 18 · 2026-08-12
IELTS Writing Task 1 question
The graph below gives information about the percentage of the population in four Asian countries living in cities from 1970 to 2020, with predictions for 2030 and 2040. Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant.
Student answer (Band 5.0)
The rendered line graph depicts the information about proportion of the citizens in four Asian nations living regional areas from 1970 to 2020, with forecast for 2030 and 2040.
Overall, count of strength in Malaysia is rose up in the forecast year while, in Indonesia in first year it was at lowest but in forecast year it increased.
In year 1970, the count of strength of Malaysia was about at 30 percent, while in forecast year would increase by 80 percent. The count of citizen in Thailand were about 20 percent in first year and from 1990 to 2020 it stayed unchanged while, in forecast year it rose up nearby 50 percent.
After that, in Philippines in year 1970 the count of strength were more than 30 percent therefore it shown only little progress in forecast year nearby 50 percent of citizen started living in cities of Philippines. In last, country Indonesia count of strength were about only 15 percent but in following year it rose up dramatically nearby 60 percent citizen used to lived their.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.0 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.5 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.0 |
| Overall | 5.0 |
Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.0
The response covers all four countries and the time frame provided. However, the reporting of data is often inaccurate or confusing. For instance, stating Malaysia reached '80 percent' is not supported by the graph, and the term 'count of strength' is used incorrectly to refer to population percentages. While the main features are identified, the lack of precision in data reporting and the misinterpretation of the graph's content prevent a higher score. The overview is present but lacks clarity due to awkward phrasing. To improve, ensure that data points are read accurately from the axes and that the terminology used (e.g., 'percentage of the population') is precise.
Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.5
The essay is organized into paragraphs, which is a positive step. However, the logical progression is hindered by repetitive and unnatural phrasing. Cohesive devices are used, such as 'In year 1970' and 'After that', but they are often mechanical or misused. The referencing is sometimes unclear, making it difficult for the reader to follow the comparison between countries. The flow of ideas is somewhat disjointed, and the lack of sophisticated linking words makes the text feel like a list of observations rather than a cohesive summary. Improving the variety of transition signals and ensuring clear topic sentences would enhance the overall structure.
Lexical Resource — Band 5.0
The vocabulary is limited and frequently inaccurate. The phrase 'count of strength' is used repeatedly but is not appropriate for describing demographic data. Other errors include 'regional areas' instead of 'urban areas' or 'cities', and 'nearby' used incorrectly to mean 'nearly' or 'approximately'. There is little evidence of less common lexical items or an awareness of collocation. The range is just sufficient to convey the basic meaning, but the persistent misuse of terms significantly impacts the quality of the writing. Expanding your vocabulary to include terms like 'urbanization', 'proportion', and 'fluctuate' would be beneficial.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0
The response relies on simple sentence structures, and there are frequent grammatical errors throughout. Examples include 'in Indonesia in first year it was at lowest', 'the count of citizen in Thailand were', and 'used to lived their'. These errors involve subject-verb agreement, article usage, and tense consistency. While the meaning is generally understandable, the high frequency of errors and the lack of complex sentence structures limit the score. To improve, focus on mastering basic sentence construction, specifically subject-verb agreement and the correct use of prepositions and articles, before attempting more complex grammatical forms.
See this exact question answered at other band scores — the same prompt compared across bands.
Browse more IELTS Writing model answers or get your own writing scored by the same AI examiner.