Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

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

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 the overall population of New York City and population distribution across its five districts in 1800, 1900 and 2000.

Overall, it is evident that New York city's population increased over the period initially. While Manhattan contributed the most to the total city's population that decreased later on, collective contribution from other districts increased over this specefied period of time.

In 1800, New York City had 79,216 inhabitants, with Manhattan accounting for 76% of the total, at 60,515 people. In the meantime, other districts represented 24% of the total population, at 18,701 residents. The city's total population climbed to 3,437,202 in 1900 with manhattan having a share of 54 %, at 1,850,093 population and other districts stood at 46%, with 1,587,109 people.

In 2000, the New York City's population rose to 8,009,185 with a large contribution from other districts at 81% (6,471,089 residents), whereas Manhattan had only 1,53,089 inhabitants at 19% of the total city's population.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You cover the main changes and make relevant comparisons, including the city’s growth from 79,216 to 8,009,185 and the shift in population share from Manhattan to the other districts. The figures for 1800 and 1900 are accurately reported. However, the overview is not fully precise: “increased … initially” does not clearly summarise the overall rise, and the final Manhattan figure is incorrect. The table gives 1,538,096, not “1,53,089.” Also, the overview could state more clearly that Manhattan’s population rose to a peak in 1900 before falling, while the other districts grew substantially. These omissions and the misreported figure leave some key information less fully addressed.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction, an overview, and chronological paragraphs covering the three years. This makes the information easy to follow, and linking expressions such as “In the meantime” and “whereas” help signal comparisons. The progression is generally logical, but some connections are mechanical or imprecise. For example, “While Manhattan contributed the most … that decreased later on” has an unclear reference: it is Manhattan’s population share, rather than its contribution in general, that declined. The overview also says “increased … initially,” which does not clearly connect to the full period. More precise referencing and a clearer comparison between the 1900 peak and 2000 decline would make the cohesion more natural.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use an adequate range of task-related vocabulary, including “accounting for,” “represented,” “share,” “climbed,” and “residents.” These choices help describe population and proportions, and the meaning is generally clear. There are, however, some inaccurate or awkward choices that limit precision. “Collective contribution” is less natural than “combined share,” while “at 1,850,093 population” and “stood at 46%, with…” are awkward collocations. “Specified” is misspelled as “specefied,” and “Manhattan” is inconsistently capitalised. Aim for standard statistical phrasing such as “had a population of” and “accounted for,” and check spelling and capitalisation carefully. This would make the vocabulary more accurate and natural without needing more elaborate wording.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

You use a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, including a subordinate clause beginning “While” and a comparison with “whereas.” Most sentences communicate the intended information, but some grammatical choices are awkward or unclear. In “While Manhattan contributed the most … that decreased later on,” the clause structure leaves the reference of “that” uncertain. “The city's total population climbed … with Manhattan having a share” is understandable but would be more controlled as two linked clauses. The final sentence also needs a clearer possessive construction: “New York City’s population” rather than “the New York City’s population.” There is some effective structural variety, but more consistent control of clause links, articles, and sentence boundaries would improve accuracy.

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.