Band 4.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 4.5 · Cambridge IELTS 19 · 2026-10-05

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 4.5)

the line graph shows the numbers of participent for differnt activities in te year 2000 to 2020 at one social centre in melbourne, Austeaila for two decades its inlude numbers of participents and the years.

numbers of participents on the year 2000 to 2010, In the activity of flim cliub was decreesed by 58 participents, Thats was the lowest on the flim club of all time. After that the highest particepents on the activity of flim club in the year of 2010 to 2020 the increses of participents goes upto almost 70 participents. on the activity of martial arts in the year of 2000 was 38 participents thats flacuated in 20 years then the year of 2020 it was 38 participents same like the year 2000. In the activity of amateur dramatics in the year 2000 25 participents partcipate after that participents decreesd extremely on 2020 it was decreesed to 8 participents. In the activity of table tannis participent on the year 2000 was 18 after that its increesing high participents but it was a slightly high on the first decade on the second decade its goes to extremly high and the particpents are increesed by 30 participents. In the activity of musical performances no one participate on the year 2000 to 2005 after that it was increesed by almost 20 participents on the year of 2020.

The highest participentst partcipate on the activity of Flim club as per the graph the number of particpents on the acctivity of Flim making was highiest as compare to the other activities, the extremely decreesed activity as per the graph show was Ameture dramatics decreesed after 2005 the activity decreesed by 28 participents to 5 participents. In the avtivity of Table tennis its increesed slightly on the first decade but in the second deade it increesed extremly 20 participents to 50 participents. it was a very huge change on the activity of Table tennis in the one decade and the others slightly flactuted on the two deacdes.

the activities calculation shows that the Tabble Tennis is increesing very high so the governament of australia has to support the activity of Table tennis and setup tables on the schools .

AI examiner evaluation

CriterionBand
Task Achievement / Task Response5.0
Coherence and Cohesion4.0
Lexical Resource4.5
Grammatical Range and Accuracy4.5
Overall4.5

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.0

The response addresses the task only partially. While you attempted to summarize the main trends from the graph—such as mentioning the film club and table tennis—your presentation of data contains several inaccuracies and is not always clear. For instance, you state that film club participants decreased significantly in the first decade, whereas the graph shows it remained relatively stable around 60 to 64. Furthermore, your conclusion includes personal recommendations regarding government support for table tennis, which is not required in an academic task and reflects a misunderstanding of the format. To improve, you must ensure that all figures and trends reported are factually faithful to the visual data provided, and maintain an objective, academic tone without adding external opinions.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 4.0

Information and ideas are not arranged coherently, and there is no clear overall progression. The response is structured into dense blocks of text that mix different years and activities randomly, making it very difficult for the reader to follow the development of trends over time. Cohesive devices are either missing or misused, with repetitive connectors like 'after that' dominating the paragraphs. Paragraphing is poorly handled, and referencing is frequently unclear, meaning the reader cannot easily tell which data points are being compared. To reach a higher level, you need to group related information logically—such as comparing rising and falling trends—and use a wider variety of accurate cohesive markers to guide the reader smoothly through the response.

Lexical Resource: Band 4.5

The vocabulary used is limited and repetitive, with frequent errors in word choice, word formation, and spelling that occasionally strain the reader. Words such as 'participent', 'differnt', 'decreesed', and 'tannis' contain severe spelling errors. You also rely on basic phrasing to describe changes, using terms like 'extremly high' repeatedly rather than a varied range of lexical items. Less common vocabulary is attempted, but with noticeable inaccuracies in collocation and form. To improve this area, you should focus on mastering standard spelling for common task-related terms like 'participants' and 'activities', and expand your vocabulary of descriptive verbs and adverbs to report statistical changes more precisely.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 4.5

You demonstrate a very limited range of structures, and frequent errors in grammar and punctuation cause difficulty for the reader. Simple sentences are often poorly constructed, and attempts at complex structures result in major faults, such as fragments and run-on sentences lacking appropriate verbs or conjunctions (e.g., 'numbers of participent for differnt activities in te year 2000 to 2020 at one social centre in melbourne, Austeaila for two decades its inlude...'). Errors occur across tenses, subject-verb agreement, plurals, and prepositions inside grammatical patterns. To improve, you need to work on basic sentence boundary punctuation, ensure every sentence contains a clear main verb, and practice forming grammatically sound complex sentences to express comparisons and time frames accurately.

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.