Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Cambridge IELTS 20 · 2026-10-26

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 6.5)

The tables illustrates changes in the gross population of New York City & its five districts in 1800, 1900 & 2000.

Overall, the city's populace surged dramatically over the period. While, Manhattan had the largest share of the residents in 1800 & other four districts combined became dominant in 2000.

In 1800, New York City had combined population of 79,2116 with 60,515 l(76%) living in Manhattan & 18,701 (24%) residing in other four districts. By 1900, the city's population has risen sharply by approximately 3.44 million. Manhattan had 1.85 people living there making a total of 54% of the total population. The remaining districts accounted for 46% which comes to nearly 1.58 million inhabitants.

In 2000, the total citizens had grown to 8 million. However, Manhattan;s population fell to roughly 1.54 million & its shares dropped to 19%. In contrast, the combined occupants of the rest four districts swelled substantially to about 6.47 million, representing 81% of the city's residents.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

The response identifies the main pattern clearly: New York City’s population grew substantially, while Manhattan’s share declined and the other districts became dominant. It supports this overview with relevant figures for all three years, including the 76% to 19% change in Manhattan’s share and the rise of the other districts to 81%. The comparison between 1900 and 2000 is especially useful. However, there is a notable numerical error in the opening-year total: “79,2116” does not match the table’s 79,216. Also, “Manhattan had 1.85 people” omits the unit and is unclear, although the following percentage helps convey the intended comparison. More precise reporting of these figures would strengthen an otherwise well-selected summary.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 7.0

The response is organised effectively into an introduction, a concise overview, and chronological detail, so the reader can follow the changes across the three years. The progression from 1800 and 1900 to 2000 is logical, and contrast markers such as “In contrast” help highlight the shift away from Manhattan. The overview also gives the reader a useful framework before the figures are presented. Some linking is slightly awkward or unnecessary, as in “While, Manhattan…” and “However” before the 2000 figures, where the relationship could be expressed more directly. The repeated use of “&” also makes the prose feel less formal. Overall, the organisation is clear, though more natural transitions and consistent formal presentation would improve cohesion.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

There is adequate range for describing population change, with phrases such as “surged dramatically,” “share dropped,” and “swelled substantially” conveying trends clearly. The writer also uses relevant terms including “accounted for” and “representing.” However, some less common choices are imprecise or unnatural in this context: “gross population” is not the usual term, “populace” sounds overly literary, and “total citizens” refers to people’s legal status rather than population. “Combined occupants” is also an awkward collocation. These choices do not prevent the reader from understanding the main message, but they reduce precision and register control. Prefer standard demographic language and use varied but natural verbs for increases, decreases, and proportions.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

The response attempts a mix of simple and more complex structures, including the contrast in “While, Manhattan had the largest share…” and the sentence beginning “In contrast.” Most of the message remains understandable, but some grammatical errors and punctuation problems are evident. “The tables illustrates” has subject–verb disagreement, and “had combined population” is missing an article. The clause “By 1900, the city's population has risen” uses an inappropriate tense for a past time period; “had risen” or “rose” would be suitable. There are also punctuation issues, including the comma after “While” and the apostrophe in “Manhattan;s.” More consistent control of agreement, articles, tense, and sentence punctuation would make the varied structures more accurate.

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.