Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 19 · 2026-09-14
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 5.0)
The line graph illustrates the number of people participating in different types of activities at one social centre in Melbourne, Australia for the period 2000 to 2020.
Overall, Musical performances had negligible number of contestents by the initial periods, it experienced a rapid growth after 2005. Whereas, Amateur dramatics had fallen drastically after 2005. Film club activities showed stable trend throughout the period.
There was a noticeable decline of participants in Amateur dramatics from 30 to almost 5. While there were no candidate participating till 2005, this figure had significantly risen to approximately 20 participants. Whereas, Table tennis club showed a stable trajectory, this figure encounter a dramatic incline to 50 participants after 2010.
In 2000, martial arts classes stood at the second highly common activitiese in Melbourne with around 35 engagement. It got fluncuated during the period of 20 years. In addition, Film club activities were comparatively constant throughout the time phase.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.5 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.0 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.0 |
| Overall | 5.0 |
Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.5
The student attempts to address the task by summarising the main features of the line graph, including general trends and some specific data points. For instance, they mention the decline in Amateur dramatics from '30 to almost 5' and the rise in Table tennis club participation. However, there are notable inaccuracies in reporting the data and confusing pronouns or subjects, such as stating 'While there were no candidate participating till 2005, this figure had significantly risen to approximately 20 participants,' which creates confusion regarding which activity is being referenced. Additionally, some key trends are missing or partially developed. Consequently, the response covers parts of the task but lacks full clarity and accurate reporting across all features, aligning with a Band 5.5 performance.
Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.0
The response has an overall arrangement that attempts to follow a standard report structure, beginning with an introduction followed by body paragraphs. However, logical progression is frequently disrupted by imprecise referencing and abrupt transitions. For example, sentences like 'Whereas, Amateur dramatics had fallen drastically after 2005' misuse cohesive markers such as 'whereas' to link unrelated or contrasting ideas improperly. Paragraphing is attempted, but internal cohesion within paragraphs is faulty and mechanical, with repetitive use of transition words like 'in addition' and 'whereas' to start sentences awkwardly. These issues impede smooth reading, justifying a Band 5.0 score.
Lexical Resource — Band 5.0
The student demonstrates an adequate vocabulary range to communicate basic information about trends, utilising terms like 'rapid growth,' 'drastically,' and 'stable trajectory.' However, there are noticeable lexical errors, awkward word choices, and incorrect word forms throughout the text. Examples include 'contestents' instead of contestants, 'highly common activitiese' with a spelling error and grammatical mismatch, and 'encounter a dramatic incline' where 'experienced' or 'saw' would be more natural collocations. There are also misused terms like 'engagement' instead of participants. These errors cause some confusion for the reader, placing the lexical performance at a Band 5.0.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0
The writing exhibits a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, attempting structures with subordinate clauses such as 'While there were no candidate participating till 2005...' However, grammatical accuracy is weak, with frequent errors in subject-verb agreement and word forms. Examples include 'Musical performances had negligible number' (missing article), 'no candidate participating' (singular/plural mismatch), and 'It got fluncuated' (awkward passive/active confusion and spelling error). Punctuation and sentence boundaries are sometimes mishandled, leading to fragments or run-on ideas. Although meaning is generally retrievable, the density of errors prevents the response from reaching a higher band, resulting in a score of 5.0.
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.