Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Cambridge IELTS 20 · 2026-10-17

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 tables illustrate changes in the population of New York City and its five districts—Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens and Staten Island—between 1800 and 2000.

Overall, New York City's total population increased substantially over the period, reaching 8,009,185 in 2000. Manhattan's share of the city's population declined considerably, whereas the combined share of the other four districts increased.

In 1800, Manhattan accounted for 76 percent of the city's population, while the other four districts collectively represented the remaining 24 percent. By 1900, Manhattan's share had fallen to 54 percent, whereas the combined proportion of the other districts had risen to 46 percent.

By 2000, Manhattan accounted for only 19 percent of the total population. In contrast, the other four districts together represented 81 percent. This demonstrates a substantial shift in the distribution of New York City's population towards districts outside Manhattan.

Finally, Manhattan had a great loss of population other was huged population.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

The response identifies the main overall change and the central shift in population distribution: Manhattan’s share falls from 76% to 19%, while the other districts’ combined share rises from 24% to 81%. The figures for all three years are accurately reported, and the overview is clear. However, the account focuses almost entirely on percentages and gives little attention to the population totals, despite the first table showing growth from 79,216 to 8,009,185. The final sentence, “Manhattan had a great loss of population other was huged population,” is unclear and does not provide a reliable comparison. To make the summary more complete, report key population figures and explain that Manhattan’s population rose to 1,850,093 by 1900 before declining to 1,538,096 in 2000.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response is organised into a clear introduction, overview and chronological body paragraphs. The progression from 1800 to 1900 and then 2000 is easy to follow, and linking expressions such as “By 1900,” “In contrast” and “Finally” help signal relationships between points. This logical structure is a strength. However, the final sentence is disconnected from the preceding, polished account and its meaning is difficult to follow, weakening the ending. There is also some repetition of the same percentage contrast across the body and overview. For stronger cohesion, integrate the population totals into the chronological paragraphs and finish with a clear comparison rather than adding an abrupt, unclear statement.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

The response uses suitable task vocabulary, including “accounted for,” “collectively represented,” “combined proportion” and “distribution,” and these choices communicate the main comparisons effectively. There is some variation in how the population shares are described. However, the range is somewhat repetitive, particularly through repeated use of “share,” “population” and “districts,” and the final phrase “other was huged population” contains serious word-choice and word-form problems that make the intended meaning unclear. More precise language would also help distinguish population size from percentage share. Use terms such as “population total,” “proportion” and “declined in absolute numbers” where appropriate, and avoid vague evaluative wording such as “great loss” when reporting numerical changes.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

Most of the response is grammatically controlled, with accurate simple and complex structures. For example, “Manhattan's share of the city's population declined considerably, whereas the combined share of the other four districts increased” uses a clear contrast clause, and the year-based sentences are generally well formed. There are some errors, especially in the final sentence: “Manhattan had a great loss of population other was huged population” lacks a clear clause boundary and has faulty sentence structure. The response also relies heavily on similar sentence patterns, so its grammatical range is not consistently varied. Continue using accurate comparison clauses, but practise combining related information with controlled structures such as “while” and “whereas,” and ensure each sentence has a complete, clearly connected clause.

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.