Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 20 · 2026-08-03
IELTS Writing Task 1 question
The first table below shows changes in the total population of New York City from 1800 to 2000. The second and third tables show changes in the population of the five districts of the city (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, Staten Island) over the same period.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
Student answer (Band 5.0)
The given tables illustrate the changes in the total population of the New York City and its five districts - Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens and Staten Island - from 1800 to 2000.
A closer look at tables, New York City's total population was rapidly increased over the period. In 1880, the total population was just 79,216 and 8,[redacted phone] was in 2000. In 1800, the total population in Manhattan was 76%, which was the highest population among five districts of the New York City. On the other sides, the figure of the total population of New York City other district was 24%. In 1900, Manhattan's total population fallen by percentage, which was 54%. And other four districts, Brooklyn, bronx, Queens and Staten Island, ware saw rapidly growth
in population. which was increased from 24% to 46%.
In 2000, the population of the four districts, excluding Manhattan, ware rapidly increased. which was 81%. While Manhattan's population was rapidly fallen. Which was 81%.
Overall, the highest population of the New York City's live in Manhattan but in 1800. However, the population ware divided in other four district by end of the period.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.0 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.0 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 4.5 |
| Overall | 5.0 |
Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.0
The response identifies the main trends, such as the overall population growth and the shift in population distribution from Manhattan to the other four districts. However, the data reporting is inconsistent and contains significant inaccuracies. For instance, the student claims Manhattan's population in 2000 was 81%, which contradicts the provided data. Furthermore, the description of the 1800 data is confusing, and the comparison between the districts is not clearly articulated. The response lacks a clear overview that synthesizes the information effectively, and the misinterpretation of the figures hinders the clarity of the task achievement.
Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.0
The essay is organized into paragraphs, but the logical flow is frequently interrupted by grammatical errors and awkward phrasing. Cohesive devices are used, such as 'In 1800' and 'Overall', but they are often applied in a mechanical or repetitive way. The referencing is sometimes unclear, particularly when discussing the 'other four districts'. The progression of ideas is difficult to follow because the sentences are often disjointed, and the connection between the data points and the analysis is weak, which impacts the overall coherence of the response.
Lexical Resource — Band 5.0
The range of vocabulary is limited and repetitive. The student relies on basic terms like 'increased', 'fallen', and 'highest'. There are noticeable errors in word choice and collocation, such as 'the figure of the total population of New York City other district' and 'ware saw rapidly growth'. These errors occasionally cause difficulty for the reader. To reach a higher band, the student needs to use a wider range of vocabulary to describe trends, such as 'surged', 'declined', or 'proportion', and ensure they are used in the correct context.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 4.5
The response contains frequent grammatical errors that impede communication. There are consistent issues with verb tenses ('was rapidly increased', 'population fallen'), subject-verb agreement ('population ware divided'), and sentence structure. Many sentences are fragmented or incorrectly punctuated, such as 'Which was 81%.' The use of complex structures is attempted but is almost always faulty. The high frequency of errors in basic grammar, such as the misuse of 'ware' for 'were' and incorrect preposition usage, significantly lowers the score for this criterion.
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.