Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 20 · 2026-11-02

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 table illustrates the fluctuation of in total number of people across five different districts, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island, of New York City over the period of 2 centuries from 1800 to 2000.

Overall, it is clear from the table that the overall population of New York has increased over the centuries. The major decline can be seen in Manhattan than other four districts.

The overall trend shows that the population of New York City has increased from 79216 in 1800 to [redacted phone] in 2000 with [redacted phone] people in 1900.

The population in Manhattan was 76% in 1800 and in other districts was just 24%. In 2000, the population in Manhattan is just 19% and that of Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, Staten Island, consists of 81%. In 1900, people in both districts were close, consisting 54% in Manhattan and 46% in other areas.

The overall population growth in New York City has increased from 79216 to [redacted phone] in 1900 and further increased to [redacted phone] in 2000.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You identify the main overall rise in New York City’s population and report the key figures for 1800, 1900 and 2000. The changing shares are also accurately compared: Manhattan falls from 76% to 19%, while the other districts rise from 24% to 81%. However, the response only partly develops the table’s main features. It says there was a “major decline” in Manhattan without clarifying that this refers to its population share, and it omits the important fact that Manhattan’s actual population rose sharply to 1,850,093 by 1900 before falling to 1,538,096 in 2000. The overview would be clearer if it distinguished the city’s continuing growth from Manhattan’s declining share and later population decrease.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 4.5

The response has a recognisable structure, moving from an introduction and overview to figures and comparisons. However, progression is weakened by repetition: the city’s population increase is stated in the overview, repeated in the third paragraph, and then restated in the final paragraph. The final paragraph adds no new comparison, so it would be more effective to use that space to describe Manhattan’s population change. Some links between ideas are also unclear, particularly “The major decline can be seen in Manhattan than other four districts,” which does not specify what is declining. Organise the body around two clear themes—total population growth and the contrast between Manhattan and the other districts—and use references such as “its share” precisely.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use relevant vocabulary for describing data, including “overall population,” “increased,” “consisting,” and “percentage,” and the meaning is generally understandable. However, the range is limited and some choices are inaccurate or repetitive. “Fluctuation” suggests repeated rises and falls, whereas the city’s total population rises at each reported date. “Major decline” is imprecise because Manhattan’s percentage share declines, while its population first rises and then falls. The phrase “the population in Manhattan was 76%” also confuses population with proportion. More precise terms such as “accounted for,” “share,” and “population total” would help distinguish these measures and make the comparisons clearer.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mix of simple and more complex sentences, and several are understandable, such as “In 2000, the population in Manhattan is just 19% and that of … consists of 81%.” However, grammatical control is uneven. The opening phrase “the fluctuation of in total number” contains an unnecessary preposition and an incorrect noun phrase, while “The major decline can be seen in Manhattan than other four districts” has a faulty comparison structure. There are also tense inconsistencies when describing past data, for example “is just 19%,” and awkward sentence construction in “with 3437202 people in 1900.” Use past tense consistently and check that each comparison has a clear grammatical form, such as “Manhattan’s share fell, whereas the other districts’ share rose.”

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.