Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · 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 5.5)

The tables present data about the years and the population in New York city.

The below two tables compares the population within the same era in different five of its districts. Total number of the population gradually increased from 1800 to 2000 from 79216 to [redacted phone] which is a considerably a remarkable growth in the people numbers in 2 decades.

But if we check this growth along the districts we say an unusual change in the trend. Where Manhattan is leading the comulative population of all other four district in 1800 by 52% which is maintained by 12% ahead from all the other fours district in 1900.

And in the meantime the fours district comulative population number increased drastically to a huge number and Manhattan loses its place and just shares 19% population of New York city and other fours districts lead by 81% population in the year 2000 which is conaiderably an outstanding growth amoung the population.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You identify the main overall pattern: New York’s population rose substantially, while Manhattan’s share fell and the other four districts’ share increased. The figures 79,216 and 8,009,185, and the 19% versus 81% split in 2000, are accurately reported. However, the response gives little detail about the intermediate changes and includes a significant misreading: Manhattan led by 52% in 1800, not “by 52%” of the population; its share was 76%, compared with 24% elsewhere. In 1900, the difference was 8 percentage points, not 12%. The overview is present, but the comparisons and supporting data are not consistently precise or fully developed.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a basic overall sequence, moving from an introduction and total population to district comparisons, and phrases such as “But” and “in the meantime” attempt to connect ideas. However, the organisation is not consistently clear: the opening refers to “the below two tables” without clearly distinguishing the total-population table from the district table, and the long final section combines several comparisons in one sentence. Some linking is mechanical or confusing, particularly “Where Manhattan…” and “And in the meantime.” Use separate paragraphs for the overview and key comparisons, and connect each point with clear references to the relevant year and population share. This would make the progression easier to follow.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use some relevant vocabulary, including “gradually increased,” “trend,” “shares,” and “drastically,” to describe change and comparison. However, the range is limited and several word choices or collocations are inaccurate or awkward, which sometimes makes the meaning difficult to follow. For example, “comulative population” is not an appropriate way to describe Manhattan’s share, while “loses its place” is vague for a change in population ranking or proportion. There are also spelling errors such as “conaiderably” and “amoung,” and repeated use of “population” and “growth.” Choose precise terms such as “accounted for,” “proportion,” and “declined,” and check spelling and collocations carefully.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt both simple and more complex sentence forms, including a conditional opening (“if we check this growth…”) and clauses describing changes over time. However, complex sentences are often faulty, and errors in agreement, articles, and sentence construction can make the relationships between ideas unclear. For example, “The below two tables compares” has subject–verb disagreement, while “Manhattan is leading” uses an unsuitable tense for historical data. The sentence beginning “But if we check…” is also incomplete in its construction, and “which is a considerably a remarkable growth” has an incorrect article and adverb pattern. Practise writing shorter, complete sentences with consistent past-tense reporting and check subject–verb agreement.

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.