Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 12 · 2026-08-04
IELTS Writing Task 1 question
The chart below shows how frequently people in the USA ate in fast food restaurants between 2003 and 2013.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
Student answer (Band 5.0)
The given bar chart illustrates the information about the consumption of fast food in the restaurants of the USA in the given years of 2003 to 2013. The data has been calibrated in percentage.
Overall it is crystal clear that the highly denoted population of the USA ate fast food once a week whereas the fast food neglected by only least population in the given period of time.
At the fleeting glance,to began with,the fast food ate everyday was by only 4% of population in initial year and less than 5% of population took place in both forthcoming years. Additionally,the 20% of population in the USA ate fast food from restaurants once a week in 2006 while less than 20% of population calculated in rest of the years.In addition,fast food consumed by more than 30% of individuals in first given year,slightly increased to the 33% approximate and less than 30% was in 2013.
Moving further,initial one,30% of people likes to ate fast food once or twice a month,gradually decreased to 25% and quickly rose up more than 30% in final year.Regarding the remaining categories 15% of population ate fast food in both yeas 2006 and 2013 however the individuals in first year was least.Moreover,the 4% population neglect the fast food in 2006 and 2013 while the ratio of people consuming fast food in 2003 was steadily more.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.0 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.0 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.0 |
| Overall | 5.0 |
Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.0
The response provides an overview and attempts to report on the main features of the chart. However, the reporting is often inaccurate or confusing. For instance, the description of the 'once a week' category as '20%... in 2006 while less than 20%... in rest of the years' is imprecise. Furthermore, the data interpretation is inconsistent, and some figures are misread or poorly explained, such as the vague reference to 'the individuals in first year was least'. To improve, ensure that data points are clearly identified and that comparisons are logically structured to highlight trends rather than just listing numbers.
Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.0
The essay is organised into paragraphs, but the logical flow is frequently interrupted by awkward phrasing and mechanical transitions. Phrases like 'At the fleeting glance, to began with' and 'Moving further, initial one' are unnatural and do not effectively guide the reader through the data. While there is an attempt to use cohesive devices, they are often used incorrectly or in a way that creates confusion. The progression of ideas is not always clear, making it difficult to follow the comparison of the different categories across the years.
Lexical Resource — Band 5.0
The vocabulary is limited and often repetitive. There are several instances of awkward word choice and collocation errors, such as 'highly denoted population', 'fast food neglected by only least population', and 'the ratio of people consuming fast food in 2003 was steadily more'. These errors occasionally impede the clarity of the message. To reach a higher band, you should focus on using more precise terminology for describing trends (e.g., 'fluctuated', 'remained stable', 'peaked') and avoid literal translations that result in unnatural phrasing.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0
The response contains a high frequency of grammatical errors, including issues with subject-verb agreement ('30% of people likes to ate'), article usage, and sentence structure. Many sentences are fragmented or lack necessary prepositions, such as 'fast food ate everyday was by only 4%'. While there is an attempt to use complex structures, they are often faulty and cause confusion. The punctuation is also inconsistent, with missing spaces after commas and periods. Focusing on basic sentence construction and proofreading for subject-verb agreement would significantly improve the quality of the writing.
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.