Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · 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 6.0)

The table bespeaks the radical change in the population parameters of the five prominent districts in New York city for the time duration beginning from 1800 to the early 2000s. Looking from an overall perspective, it is readily apparent that the inhabitants index in 1800 hold the meagerest portion in the city with merely 79,216 population settlement, which rapidly reached to its zenith in the 2000 with approx. 8,009,185 people occupying the place.

In essence, the city's majority folk chose Manhattan as the top-most preferred location to reside in with the population figure of 76% said to have constituted the place in 1800 while four other districts ( Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, Staten Island) contributed the all together habitation of 24%, accompanied by the incremental population size of 3,437,202 amongst which 54% made a living in Manhattan and 46% in the other distinct districts, marking a sudden new change of the time. Furthermore, the shift was carried forward by immense when out of approx. 8,00,000 population, 81% selected the diverse districts of the city of New York to dwell in replacing the long-run era of living in Manhattan with solely 19% occupying the region.

In conclusion, it can be omitted that not only there has been a severe rise in the population index over time but also a shift in the preference of the place by the people to make a living .

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You identify the two central trends: New York’s total population rose substantially, while its population became increasingly concentrated outside Manhattan. The figures of 79,216 and 8,009,185 are accurate, and the comparison of Manhattan’s share falling from 76% to 19% against the other districts’ rise from 24% to 81% is relevant. However, some details are unclear or inaccurate: “approx. 8,00,000” misstates the 2000 total, and the 1900 population of 3,437,202 is awkwardly attached to the district-share comparison rather than clearly identified as the city total. The response also does not report Manhattan’s actual population decline from 1,850,093 to 1,538,096. A clearer overview and more precise selection of key figures would make the summary more complete.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a recognisable structure, moving from an opening overview to comparisons and a concluding summary. Connectors such as “Looking from an overall perspective,” “Furthermore,” and “In conclusion” help signal stages in the discussion. However, the middle paragraph combines several years and figures in a long sentence, making it difficult to follow which population total belongs to which year. Phrases such as “accompanied by the incremental population size” do not clearly connect the 1900 total to the district percentages, and “the shift was carried forward by immense” interrupts the progression. Organise the data chronologically in shorter sentences, with each year’s total and district shares grouped together, and use referencing that makes the comparisons explicit.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You attempt a broad range of vocabulary, including “radical change,” “constituted,” “incremental,” and “shift,” and the main topic remains understandable. However, several conspicuous choices are unnatural or imprecise for describing statistical tables: “bespeaks,” “inhabitants index,” “meagerest portion,” “majority folk,” and “made a living” do not fit the formal data-reporting context. Some phrases also obscure meaning, particularly “the shift was carried forward by immense.” Prefer straightforward, accurate collocations for population trends and proportions; this will improve precision more than using unusually elaborate wording. Check that each less common word expresses the intended relationship between a population figure, a share, and a change over time.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You use both simple and more complex sentence forms, including a contrast between Manhattan and the other districts and a concluding “not only…but also” construction. Some grammatical errors remain, though the overall message can generally be followed. For example, “the inhabitants index in 1800 hold” has a tense and agreement problem, while “in the 2000” uses an unnecessary article. The long sentence beginning “In essence” contains several clauses whose relationships are difficult to track, and the construction “out of approx. 8,00,000 population” is not grammatically well formed. Use past-tense verbs consistently for the historical data, check articles and agreement, and divide heavily layered sentences into clearer units. This would make your range of structures more controlled.

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.