Band 4.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 4.5 · Cambridge IELTS 20 · 2026-10-19

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 4.5)

The tables given shows population statistics between 1800 and 2000, The first table shows the in the change in polution of New York city while the second and thrid tables give the population of five districts in the city

Overall, the polution in all five district of newyork increase steadily while Manhattan experinced some variation

In 1800, all five districts in New York City had a total polution of 79,216. This number continued to increase over the years. By 2000 it had reached 8,000,185. This was a very significant increasment as compared to 1800.

In Manhattan, The percentage of the total population in steady increased starting at 24% in 1800 until it reach 81% in 2000.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 3.5

The response identifies the broad rise in New York City’s population, but it reports very little of the table accurately and omits key comparisons. The total in 2000 is given as 8,000,185 rather than 8,009,185. More seriously, the final paragraph reverses the district figures: Manhattan’s share fell from 76% to 19%, while the other districts’ share rose from 24% to 81%; the response attributes the latter trend to Manhattan. It also says Manhattan experienced variation without explaining its population peak in 1900 and subsequent decline. The overview is therefore misleading, and the response is 34 words below the required minimum. To improve, give an accurate overview and compare the total, Manhattan, and the other districts across the three years.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.0

There is some basic organisation: an introduction is followed by an overview and two paragraphs containing details, and time markers such as “In 1800” and “By 2000” help the reader follow the chronology. However, progression is limited because the final paragraph gives only one district comparison and does not connect it clearly to the earlier figures. The overview’s claim that all districts increased steadily is not supported by the later discussion, which makes the relationship between ideas unclear. Cohesive links are also sparse, and the introduction repeats “the first table” and “the second and third tables” rather than guiding the reader through the main features. Grouping the total-population trend and the contrasting district trends, with clear comparisons between years, would create a more coherent account.

Lexical Resource: Band 4.5

The response uses a small range of relevant terms, including “population,” “percentage,” “total,” and “increase,” so the general subject is usually recognisable. However, vocabulary is repetitive and several inaccurate forms weaken clarity: “polution” is repeatedly used instead of “population,” “increasment” is not an appropriate noun here, and “experinced” and “thrid” are misspelled. Phrases such as “the change in polution” and “very significant increasment” are also imprecise or unnatural for describing table data. Use standard data-reporting language and vary verbs appropriately—for example, “rose,” “accounted for,” and “declined.” Careful proofreading of spelling and word forms would make the limited vocabulary more effective.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

The response mainly uses simple sentence patterns, but it does attempt a longer sentence with “while,” and the basic meaning of several statements can be followed. There are recurring errors in agreement, articles, and sentence construction. For example, “The tables given shows” should use a plural verb, and “all five district” needs a plural noun. The opening sentence contains a broken construction (“shows the in the change”), while “the percentage … in steady increased” does not form a grammatical clause. Capitalisation and punctuation are also inconsistent, including the comma splice after “2000” in the opening. Aim for clear, complete sentences first, then practise accurate comparisons using structures such as “whereas” and “while.”

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.