Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 20 · 2026-10-01

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 5.5)

The tabular representation illustrates changes in the aggregate population of New York City between 1800 and 2000 while, the accompanying tables reveal the population among five different districts namely Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island during the same period.

At first glance, it is clear that in the year 1800, the population in all five districts was 79,216 which dramatically inclined to 3,437,202 in 1900. Then, the population in 2000 considerably reached 8,009,185.

Moving further, in 1800, the population of Manhattan and other districts accounted 60,515 and 18,701 respectively. In proportionate terms, the populace of Manhattan was 76 whilst, the populace for other areas can be noticed at 24. Moreover, in 1900, the inhabitants of Manhattan and other districts increased to 1,850,093 and 1,587,096 and in 2000, its figures turned out to be 1,538,096 and 6,471,089. Whereas, the population of manhattan was 54% which plummeted to 19% in 2000. Moreover, in 2000, the population of other districts can be seen as 81% which was almost double than that of 1900.

Overall, New York city's population substantially increased throughout the period. While, the population of Manhattan increased after every 100 years by a major difference. However, the populace of other districts experienced a sharp increase in both the total population and in the percentage.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

The response addresses all parts of the task by reporting the main features and making relevant comparisons across the given years. However, some aspects are only partially developed. For instance, the overview outlines the general upward trend in the total population, but the summary of district-level shifts lacks complete clarity and precision. The writer attempts to synthesise data for the 'other districts' category but leaves some figures slightly disjointed or under-explained. To move to a higher level, the response would need to select and highlight the most salient trends—such as Manhattan's proportional decline contrasted with the dramatic expansion of the outer districts—more effectively throughout the body paragraphs, rather than merely listing sequential data points.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

There is a logical overall arrangement, with an introductory paragraph, a clear division of body details, and a concluding overview. However, the progression of ideas is sometimes mechanical or disjointed, particularly in the third paragraph where the transition between raw populations and percentages feels slightly cluttered. Cohesive devices such as 'At first glance', 'Moving further', and 'Moreover' are used, but they can be repetitive or intrusive, affecting the natural flow of the text. Paragraphing is present, but internal cohesion within sentences sometimes lacks smoothness, making the relationship between data points occasionally unclear. To improve, the writer should ensure that cohesive links are varied and integrate data comparisons more fluidly.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

The vocabulary used is adequate to communicate the core information, featuring attempts at less common lexical items such as 'aggregate population', 'proportionate terms', and 'plummeted'. However, there are noticeable inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, such as 'dramatically inclined' instead of 'increased dramatically' or 'surged', and awkward phrasing like 'its figures turned out to be'. There are also minor numerical transcription slips, such as writing '1,587,096' instead of the provided '1,587,109'. Spelling is generally acceptable, but the limited control over precise collocations and lexical precision restricts the score. Expanding the range of functional vocabulary for describing trends and improving precision would elevate this criterion.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

The writer demonstrates a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, attempting relative clauses and introductory dependent clauses. However, there are frequent errors in grammar and punctuation that surface throughout the text. These include awkward punctuation and linking issues, such as the comma splice in the opening sentence ('...between 1800 and 2000 while, the accompanying tables...'), missing articles, and awkward prepositional use. While these errors rarely completely impede communication, they persist across multiple sentence structures. To achieve a higher band, the writer must increase the proportion of error-free complex sentences and ensure tighter control over punctuation and syntactic boundaries.

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.