Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Cambridge IELTS 19 · 2026-09-11

IELTS Writing Task 1 question

The graph below gives information on the numbers of participants for different activities at one social centre in Melbourne, Australia for the period 2000 to 2020.

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

 

 

Student answer (Band 6.0)

The multiline graph illustrates the number of participants for distinct activities at one social Centre in Melbourne, Australia between in the time period of 20 years starting from 2000 and ending in 2020.

Overall, Film club had the highest participants overall. The figures of Table tennis and Musical performances saw an increment, while that of Amateur dramatic decreased sharply.

Firstly, the number of participants in table tennis and amateur dramatics in 2000 were 16 and 25 respectively. The figures of table tennis increased to 20 after a decade , while the number of participants in amateur dramatics decreased and equaled the other category. Table tennis partakers plunged to more than 50 in 2020 and amateur dramatics drastically fell to just 5.

In 2000, Film club candidates were 64, which dipped slightly in2010 to 60, and then again recovered to 65 in 202, which is the maximum participants in any activity. Musical performances only emerged from 2005 onwards, where its number increased from 0 to 12 inn 2010, and finished at 19 in 2020. Martial arts had a very similar trend like film club, with its initial number of 36 which dipped in 2005, went through some minor fluctuations and recovered to 35 in 2020.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 6.0

You have successfully identified the main trends and provided a clear overview. You covered all categories and made relevant comparisons, such as noting the contrast between the Film club and Amateur dramatics. However, there are some inaccuracies in data reporting. For instance, you stated table tennis participants 'plunged to more than 50', which is an incorrect interpretation of the graph, and you mentioned '202' instead of 2020. While the main features are highlighted, the precision of data extraction needs improvement to reach a higher band.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 6.0

The response is logically organized with a clear introduction, overview, and body paragraphs. You use cohesive devices such as 'Firstly', 'In 2000', and 'while' to connect ideas. However, the progression of information is occasionally mechanical, and some transitions feel slightly repetitive. Paragraphing is used appropriately to separate the different activities, which helps the reader follow the comparison. To improve, ensure that the flow between sentences is smoother and that referencing (e.g., 'the other category') is always unambiguous.

Lexical Resource — Band 6.0

You demonstrate an adequate range of vocabulary for the task, using terms like 'multiline graph', 'increment', 'plunged', and 'fluctuations'. There are some minor errors in word choice and collocation, such as 'Film club candidates' (participants would be more accurate) and 'finished at 19'. Additionally, there are a few typographical errors like 'inn' and 'in2010'. While the vocabulary is sufficient to convey your meaning, more precise and varied lexical choices would enhance the quality of your report.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 6.0

You use a mix of simple and complex sentence structures. There are several grammatical errors, such as 'between in the time period', 'Film club had the highest participants overall' (should be 'highest number of participants'), and 'had a very similar trend like' (should be 'similar to'). Punctuation and spacing errors, such as 'in2010' and '202', also detract from the accuracy. While these errors do not impede communication, they occur frequently enough to prevent a higher score.

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.