Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Cambridge IELTS 20 · 2026-10-11

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 6.5)

The first table gives information about the population increase in New York City from 1800 to 2000. While the second table gives the proportion of total population in Manhattan and third table shows ratio of total population in other four districts including Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, Staten island starting from 1800 to 2000.

Overall, in all the five districts the population increased over the given period. From 1800 to 1900, the largest portion of New York city population was in Manhattan, while in 2000, it became the smallest and the other four districts together accounted for the largest population.

The total population of all 5 districts grew remarkably from 79,216 individuals in 1800 to 8,009,185 individuals in 2000. At the beginning of the period given, NYC population was 79,216 comprises of 76% in Manhattan (60,515), being the largest proportion and 24% (18,701) in other districts.

The population percentage in Manhattan fell to 54% (1,850,093) in 1900 before futher decreasing to 19% (1,538,096) in 2000, compared to other districts whose population proportion notably expanded. The population proportion of other four districts exceptionally rose to 46% (1,587,109) in 1900 and further reached to 81% (6,471,089) in the final year.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

The response selects the main trends and supports them with accurate figures: New York City grew from 79,216 to 8,009,185, while Manhattan’s share fell from 76% to 19% and the other districts’ share rose to 81%. The overview clearly identifies the reversal in which Manhattan was initially dominant but became the smallest component by 2000. This addresses the task well and includes relevant comparisons across the three years. To strengthen the account further, make the distinction between population totals and percentages consistently clear: for example, Manhattan’s population rose to 1,850,093 in 1900 and then declined to 1,538,096, even as its share fell. The opening also inaccurately calls the other districts “four” in one place and “other four districts” later, although the table groups them together.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear four-paragraph structure: an introduction, an overview, and two paragraphs presenting figures. The progression from the overall population to the changing district shares is easy to follow, and contrasts such as “before” and “compared to” help connect the data. This is a coherent arrangement, but cohesion is not always smooth or precise. The opening uses “While” to begin a sentence that is not completed as a dependent clause, and the repeated references to “population proportion” make the final paragraph feel somewhat mechanical. The relationship between the total population and the district figures could also be signposted more clearly. Use complete introductory sentences and vary linking and reference expressions to make the progression more fluent.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.5

There is adequate range for describing the data, including “proportion,” “accounted for,” “fell,” “expanded,” and “remarkably.” These choices communicate the main trends, and the response uses relevant terms for percentages and population figures. However, some less common choices are inaccurate or unnatural in context: “exceptionally rose” and “further reached to” do not collocate naturally, while “ratio” is not the best term for the share of the city’s population. There are also spelling and form slips, including “futher” and “Staten island.” Aim for precise, conventional data-reporting language such as “increased substantially,” “rose to,” and “share of the total population.” This would make the vocabulary more natural and exact without requiring more elaborate wording.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

The response attempts a mix of simple and complex structures, including the comparison beginning “While the second table…” and the sentence contrasting Manhattan with the other districts. Most meanings remain clear, but some grammatical errors recur. The opening “While…” clause is a fragment because it lacks a main clause, and “NYC population was 79,216 comprises of…” combines incompatible verb structures. There are also article and agreement problems in “the largest portion of New York city population” and “the population percentage in Manhattan fell.” The sentence “further reached to 81%” has an incorrect grammatical pattern after the verb. Work on complete clause construction, consistent verb forms, and articles; these corrections would improve accuracy while preserving the range of sentence structures already attempted.

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.