Band 4.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 4.5 · Cambridge IELTS 19 · 2026-09-30
IELTS Writing Task 1 question
The plans below show a harbour in 2000 and how it looks today.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
Student answer (Band 4.5)
The harbour in 2000 didn't have the cafés, shops and hotel. And the area for marina private yachts was smaller. The changes made brought positive impact on the economic growth. The disused castle was just taking the space that can be used as a hotel for a better source of income. The tourists agree to pay for rooms with good view of the beach and the scenery. Using the public beach for the hotel only can help the company grow but it has now become difficult for the locals or the ones that can't pay the hotel bills to come and enjoy themselves. The cafés and shops make it convenient for the customers to buy what they want but it also helps the small businesses like them grow. This is because when people are just passing by and they see something that catches their attention, they would most likely buy it. Lots of shops and cafés provide more products for the customers to browse and that can either lead to price war between the businesses or satisfy people because they have a lot of options and price ranges.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 3.0 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 4.0 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.5 |
| Overall | 4.5 |
Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 3.0
The response fails to meet the core requirements of Academic Task 1. Instead of providing an objective summary of the visual data, the student treats the map as a Task 2 essay prompt, launching into a subjective discussion about economic growth, room prices, and business competition. While the text mentions a few features from the maps (such as the absence of cafés, shops, and a hotel in 2000, and the change in the marina size), it completely omits a structured overview and fails to report the majority of significant changes, such as the swapping of the fishing boats and marina locations, the expansion of the dock, or the addition of the second car park and restrooms. Because the primary function of Task 1 is data reporting rather than opinion-giving, this response falls significantly short of the descriptive requirements, earning a band score of 3.0.
Coherence and Cohesion: Band 4.0
The writing lacks appropriate paragraphing for a comparative map task, consisting of a single block of text that mixes disparate ideas. There is an absence of clear overall progression or standard cohesive devices suitable for spatial comparison. While some cohesive links are attempted (such as 'This is because' and 'when people are just'), referencing is sometimes vague, and the text reads more like a disjointed stream of consciousness than a structured report. The lack of standard introductory framing and spatial transition words severely restricts the logical flow, justifying a band score of 4.0.
Lexical Resource: Band 5.0
The vocabulary used is generally basic and conversational rather than academic or precise. Phrases like 'bringing positive impact', 'taking the space', and 'price war' show some attempt to discuss economic concepts, but lexical choice lacks precision for describing geographical and structural changes. There are awkward collocations, such as 'tourists agree to pay' and 'using the public beach for the hotel only'. While the vocabulary is sufficient to convey the writer's personal opinions, it lacks the specific lexical range—such as directional and comparative terms (e.g., 'relocated', 'converted', 'situated')—required for Task 1, resulting in a band score of 5.0.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5
The student demonstrates a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, including relative clauses ('that can be used', 'that catches their attention') and conditional/temporal clauses. However, there are noticeable grammatical and punctuation flaws, such as missing articles ('with good view'), awkward phrasing ('the ones that can't pay'), and run-on sentences that link too many clauses together without adequate breathing room. Despite these errors, communication is rarely completely impeded, and the sentence structures show some grammatical control, supporting a band score of 5.5.
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.