Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 12 · 2026-10-01

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 5.5)

THE BAR GRAPH ILLUSTRATES THE RATE OF CONSUMING AT FAST FOOD SHOPS IN AMERICA BETWEEN THE YEAR 2003 AND 2013 AND DATA IS GIVEN IN PROPORTION.

OVERALL, IT IS APPARENT THAT DAILY AND NEVER RATE OF EATING FOOD AT RESTAURANTS IS FEWER MOREOVER, ONE WEEK AND ONE OR TWO MONTHS FREQUENCY OF EATING FOOD AT SHOP WAS VERY HIGH.

ON THE ONE HAND,EATING FAST FOOD AT SHOPS WAS VERY HIGH AT AROUND 32% IN THE YEAR 2003 THEN RISE MINIMALLY IN YEAR 2006 APPROXIMATELY 1% AND TOTAL WAS 33% AND FINALLY IN THE YEAR 2013 WAS DROPING SIGNIFICANTLY PROPORTION WAS 27%. MOREOVER, ONCE AND TWICE A MONTH EATING FAST FOOD RATIO WAS HIGH IN THE YEAR 2003 PERCENTAGE WAS 30% THEN DECLINE AND TOTAL WAS 25% ANF FINALLY IN 2013 WAS AGAIN CLIMBING AND TOTAL WAS 34%.

ON THE OTHER HAND, DAILY, SEVERAL TIME, FEW TIME AND NEVER EATING FAST FOOD AT SHOP FREQUENCY IS LESS AS COMPARE TO ONCE A WEEK AND MONTH. FURTHERMORE, DAIL PROPORTION IS LESS THAN 5% IN ALL YEARS AND ALSO NEVER CATEGORY.

IN ADDITION, SEVERAL TIME A WEEK AND FEW TIMES A YEAR WAS BOTH LESS 20% IN ALL YEARS.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

The response addresses the task partially, attempting to report the main features and make some comparisons, but the information is presented with notable inaccuracies and a lack of precise data handling. For instance, the student states that eating fast food 'was very high at around 32% in the year 2003' for 'once a week', which is reasonably accurate, but subsequent descriptions of trends and proportions become muddled and difficult to follow. The overview is overly simplistic, written entirely in capital letters, and fails to clearly capture the overarching trends across the decade. Furthermore, some categories are grouped together in a confusing manner, such as 'daily, several time, few time and never', leading to an under-developed and limited treatment of the visual data. To reach the next level, the writer must ensure all key features are reported accurately without distorting the data, provide a clearer and more comprehensive overview, and extend comparisons rather than making vague generalisations.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

There is some basic organisation present, with the response broken down into an introduction, an overview, and body paragraphs. However, there is no clear overall progression, and the logical flow is frequently hindered by repetitive structures and abrupt transitions. Cohesive devices are used mechanically and inaccurately, such as the overuse of transitional phrases like 'MOREOVER', 'ON THE ONE HAND', and 'ON THE OTHER HAND', which do not always logically connect the contrasting points. Paragraphing is attempted, but the grouping of information lacks clarity, particularly in the later paragraphs where multiple disparate categories are lumped together. To improve cohesion, the writer should focus on creating a smoother logical progression between sentences and paragraphs, using cohesive devices more naturally and purposefully to guide the reader through the data.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

The vocabulary used is limited and barely adequate for the task. The writer relies heavily on basic terminology and repeats words such as 'proportion', 'rate', 'high', and 'year' excessively. There are noticeable lexical errors and awkward collocations throughout the text, such as 'rate of consuming at fast food shops', 'daily and never rate', and 'was droping significantly proportion'. Additionally, the entire response is written in uppercase letters, which reflects poorly on word form control and stylistic awareness. Spelling errors also occur, such as 'droping' instead of dropping. To achieve a higher band, the writer needs to expand their lexical repertoire to include less common vocabulary related to data analysis, improve word choice and collocation, and demonstrate greater precision when discussing numerical proportions and trends.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

The grammatical structures used are very limited, consisting mostly of simple sentences and basic descriptive clauses. When the writer attempts more complex formulations, they are frequently faulty and ungrammatical. There are frequent errors in verb tense usage, subject-verb agreement, and clause structure, such as 'then rise minimally in year 2003' (tense inconsistency), 'was droping significantly proportion was 27%', and 'ratio was high in the year 2003 percentage was 30%'. Punctuation is also poorly managed, with run-on sentences lacking proper internal punctuation or conjunctions. Frequent errors cause difficulty for the reader and obscure the meaning of the statements. To progress, the student must work on mastering basic sentence construction, ensuring consistent and accurate verb tenses for past data, and incorporating a wider, error-free variety of complex grammatical structures.

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.