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 first table illustrates changes in the total population of New York City between 1800 and 2000. The second table only reveal the population of the district Manhattan and then the third table demonstrates changes in the population of the remaining districts of the city over the same period.

Overall, it can be observed at a glance that during the year 1800, Manhattan district provided the highest contribution in the overall population of the city and the lowest contribution in the year 2000 whereas the other four districts provided the highest contribution in the year 2000 and least in 1800. Moreover, In the year 1900, the contributions remained almost similar with just 8 percentage points difference between Manhattan district and the other four districts.

Starting from the Manhattan district, this district was accounted for 76% population from the total population change of the city but then declined gradually throughout the years and reached at only 19% in 2000.

However, the other four districts accounted for just 24% population from the total population change but then the percentage rose substantially over the period of time and reached at its peak with 81% in 2000.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

You identify the main shift clearly: Manhattan’s share falls from 76% to 19%, while the other districts’ share rises from 24% to 81%. The overview also notes Manhattan’s initial dominance and the other districts’ later dominance, which captures the central comparison. However, some features are less fully reported than others: the response gives no actual population figures, despite the tables showing substantial growth in the city total and a rise in the other districts’ population. The statement that the 1900 contributions were “almost similar” is also imprecise; the shares were 54% and 46%, an eight-point gap. Include key population totals and make this comparison more exact to develop the summary further.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear overall arrangement: an introduction, an overview, and separate paragraphs for Manhattan and the other districts. This makes the main contrast easy to follow, and linking expressions such as “Overall,” “Starting from,” and “However” help signal progression. Some cohesion is less controlled, however. “The second table” and “the third table” are described as though they are separate, although the information is presented together in the supplied visual, and “this district” repeats the preceding reference without adding much. The two detail paragraphs also follow nearly identical sentence patterns. Grouping the figures by year or adding the total-population trend would create a more balanced progression and reduce mechanical repetition.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use a reasonable range of task-related vocabulary, including “contribution,” “declined gradually,” “rose substantially,” and “reached its peak,” so the main trends are communicated. There are also attempts at more formal phrasing, but some choices are inaccurate or unnatural for describing population data. “Provided the highest contribution” is less precise than saying a district “accounted for the largest share,” while “population change” suggests a change rather than the population itself. “Reached at only 19%” is also an awkward collocation. These choices do not prevent understanding, but more precise collocations and less repetition of “district” and “population” would improve flexibility and naturalness.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mix of sentence forms, including a complex overview sentence and clauses linked with “but” and “whereas.” Meaning is generally clear, but some grammatical errors remain. In the opening, “The second table only reveal” has subject–verb disagreement; use “reveals.” The phrase “was accounted for 76%” has an incorrect passive construction; write “accounted for 76%” or “made up 76%.” Similarly, “reached at only 19%” should be “reached only 19%.” The sentence beginning “Overall” is long and would benefit from clearer punctuation and parallel structure. More consistently accurate verb forms and sentence construction would strengthen control.

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.