Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 16 · 2026-09-27

IELTS Writing Task 1 question

The diagram below shows the manufacturing process for making sugar from sugar cane.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

How sugar is produced from sugar cane

cambridge ielts writing task 2 sample answers

Student answer (Band 5.0)

The flow chart illustrate the process flow, which describe how sugar is produced from raw sugar cane.

Overall, this process flow showed the total process of growing sugar canes to end edible sugar.

In the first phase farmer grow sugar canes in the land then the second phase comes, which is the cutting process of sugar canes and it can be done by hands or tractors. Then come the third phase, crushing the sugar cane trees and collecting the juice from sugar canes into a bowl. After that, fourth phase is all about purifying the juice by limestone filter. The next phase is to pour the juice into a evaporator and it becomes syrup which go through a special process which is centrifuge which separates suger crystals from syrup and the final pshase of the process is drying and cooling the crystals, which leads to the final edible sugar.

AI examiner evaluation

CriterionBand
Task Achievement / Task Response5.0
Coherence and Cohesion5.0
Lexical Resource5.0
Grammatical Range and Accuracy5.0
Overall5.0

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.0

The student attempts to describe the main stages of the sugar cane manufacturing process, starting from growing and harvesting through to crushing, purifying, evaporating, centrifuging, and drying/cooling. However, the response fails to reach the minimum word count of 150 words, stopping at 149 words, which incurs a penalty under Task Achievement. Furthermore, the overview sentence is rather repetitive ('this process flow showed the total process of growing sugar canes to end edible sugar'), and the description lacks full development in summarising key cyclical or structural relationships. While the steps are mentioned in sequence, the overall response remains somewhat basic and slightly under-developed for a Band 6.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.0

The text demonstrates a basic logical progression using sequential transition words such as 'In the first phase', 'then the second phase comes', 'Then come the third phase', and 'After that'. However, paragraphing is completely neglected, as the entire response is written as one single block of text. Cohesive devices are somewhat mechanical and repetitive (e.g., repeatedly using 'phase'), and referencing is occasionally clunky. Nevertheless, the underlying sequence of the diagram is understandable, preventing a lower score.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

The vocabulary used is adequate to describe the basic actions in the diagram, such as 'growing', 'harvesting', 'crushing', and 'purifying'. However, there are noticeable lexical inaccuracies and spelling errors, such as 'suger' instead of 'sugar', 'pshase' instead of 'phase', and awkward phrasing like 'edible sugar' or 'sugar cane trees'. The range of vocabulary is limited and repetitive, with frequent reliance on basic terms, restricting the score to a Band 5.5.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

The student attempts a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, but control over grammar and punctuation is inconsistent. There are several grammatical errors and awkward agreements, such as 'The flow chart illustrate' (subject-verb agreement error), missing articles ('in the land', 'into a evaporator'), and run-on sentences with excessive coordination ('The next phase is to pour the juice into a evaporator and it becomes syrup which go through a special process...'). Punctuation is also weak, with long, comma-spliced sentences lacking proper breaks. These errors cause occasional difficulty for the reader.

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.