Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 20 · 2026-10-15

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 given tables illustrates changes of population f in new York and in the five districts Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, Staten from 1800 to 2000. The unit used for measurement Is percentage and numbers .

Overall, it is clear that in new York the population increases over time, while the percentage of Manhattan population fell in 2000.

In 1800, the total population of Manhattan was 60,515 which was 76%, in contrast to new York 79,216. However, population of new York in 1900 was 3,437,202 , making it the greatest number as compare to Manhattan 1,850,093 54% and other districts 18,701 24% .

In 1900, Manhattan ratio of population was 54% which was slightly more than other districts 46%.

Further more, the percentage of other districts in 2000 increased to 6,471,089 81℅ , whereas the percentage of Manhattan decreased by 19% . On the other hand , in the same year 2000 new York population grew rapidly and reached 8,009,185, which was far greater than Manhattan.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You identify the main overall pattern: New York City’s population rose substantially, while Manhattan’s share fell and the other districts’ share grew. You also include relevant figures for all three years, such as the city total of 8,009,185 in 2000 and the other districts’ 81% share. However, some comparisons are unclear or inaccurate: “Manhattan ratio … was 54% which was slightly more than other districts 46%” is correct for 1900, but the preceding sentence mistakenly gives the other districts’ 1900 population as 18,701, which is their 1800 figure. The overview could also state more clearly that Manhattan’s population itself peaked in 1900 and then declined by 2000. More precise selection and explanation of these changes would make the summary more complete.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a recognisable structure, moving from an introduction and overview to year-specific details, and the reader can generally follow the comparisons. However, progression is weakened by repeating the 1900 comparison in two consecutive paragraphs and by placing the 1800 figure for the other districts in a sentence about 1900. Connectors such as “However,” “Further more,” and “On the other hand” are used, but some do not clearly express the relationship between the information. Grouping the figures by major trend—for example, city growth and the changing distribution between Manhattan and the other districts—would create a clearer progression. Use paragraph breaks to separate the overview from the detailed comparisons and avoid repeating the same point.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use some relevant vocabulary for describing data, including “increases,” “percentage,” “decreased,” and “reached,” so the main trends are usually understandable. However, the range is limited and several choices are imprecise or awkward, such as “Manhattan ratio of population,” “making it the greatest number,” and “grew rapidly.” “Total population of Manhattan” also risks confusing a district’s population with the city total. Spelling and presentation are inconsistent, including “new York” and “Further more,” and the symbol “81℅” is not appropriate in formal prose. Aim for accurate collocations such as “population share,” “accounted for,” and “the city’s population reached,” and use consistent formal spelling and number notation.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt a mixture of simple and more complex sentences, including a contrast with “whereas” and a relative clause in “which was far greater than Manhattan.” However, errors in sentence structure and agreement are noticeable. The opening, “The given tables illustrates,” has a plural subject with a singular verb, and “changes of population f” is not a complete, well-formed phrase. In “in contrast to new York 79,216,” the comparison is grammatically incomplete, while “Manhattan decreased by 19%” does not clearly express what decreased. Capitalisation and punctuation are also inconsistent, with unnecessary spaces before commas and full stops. Build complete comparison clauses and check subject–verb agreement, articles, and punctuation when editing.

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.