Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Cambridge IELTS 20 · 2026-10-16

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 presents the population of five districts of New York City combine in 1800, 1900 and 2000. The second and thirds table show the number and share of population of Manhattan, and other four districts in the total population of New York City respectively in the same years.

Overall, the population of New York city grew around hundredfold. The share of Manhattan decreased over time while the share of remaing four districts combine increased. The population of four districts combine was less than Manhattan alone until 2000.

The population of New York City was just under 80,000 in 1800, increased drastically to approximately 3.45 million in 1900 and around 8 million in 2000. The population of Manhattan was just over 60,000 in 1800, which equate to a 76% share in the total population of New York. The population of Manhattan grew in 1900 but declined in the next century. However its share declined throughtout.

The remaining four districts combine had a population of just under 19,000 in 1800, grew to around 1.6 million in 1900 and approximately 6.5 million in 2000. Their share increased from 21% to 81% in this period. Their population crossed the numbers of Manhattan in the year 2000.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

The response selects the main trends and makes relevant comparisons: it reports the city’s substantial growth, Manhattan’s falling share, and the other districts’ eventual numerical lead. The figures are generally accurate, including Manhattan’s 76% share in 1800 and the other districts’ 81% share in 2000. However, the stated starting share for the other districts is 21%, whereas the table gives 24%; this also conflicts with the earlier correct figure of 24% in the overview’s comparison. The overview is clear, though “around hundredfold” is a broad approximation. To strengthen the report, check all percentages carefully and make the comparison that Manhattan’s population peaked in 1900 before declining more explicitly in the overview.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear four-paragraph structure: an introduction, an overview, and separate descriptions of the two population groups. The progression from overall trends to supporting figures is easy to follow, and linking words such as “Overall,” “However,” and “The remaining four districts” help guide the reader. This is a coherent arrangement, but some cohesion is less controlled. For example, “The population of four districts combine was less than Manhattan alone until 2000” is followed by a similar point at the end, so the comparison is repeated. The reference “Their share” is understandable but could be made more precise by naming the group. More varied links and tighter integration of related comparisons would make the flow more flexible.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

The vocabulary is adequate for describing the tables, with useful terms such as “share,” “declined,” “drastically,” and “approximately.” These allow the writer to report changes and proportions without obscuring the meaning. However, several word-choice and collocation issues limit precision: “five districts … combine” is awkward, “remaining four districts combine” is repeated, and “crossed the numbers of Manhattan” is not a natural way to describe populations becoming larger. There are also spelling errors in “remaing” and “throughtout,” and “second and thirds table” is inaccurate in form. Use more precise expressions such as “combined population,” “accounted for,” and “overtook,” and proofread spelling and word forms.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

The response uses a mix of simple and more complex sentence forms, including a relative clause in “Manhattan was just over 60,000 in 1800, which equate to a 76% share” and contrast introduced by “while.” Most sentences remain understandable, but some grammatical errors occur. For example, “which equate” should be “which equated,” and “The first table presents the population of five districts … combine” needs a correctly formed modifier, such as “the combined population of the five districts.” The opening sentence also has a number agreement error in “second and thirds table.” These issues do not prevent the reader from following the trends, but more consistent control of agreement, verb forms, and sentence construction is needed.

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.