Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · 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 6.0)

The first table illustrates the changes in the total New York City population between 1800 and 2000, while the second and third tables present the population of the five districts of the city namely (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, Staten Island) in the same time period.

Overall, in 1800 Manhattan district recorded the highest population of New York City, while in 2000 it recorded the lowest population. In contrast, in 2000 other four districts received the biggest proportion of the total population and in 1800 all other four districts had the minimum proportion of the overall population.

Firstly, looking at the Manhattan population in more detail it is clear that in 1800 it recorded the 60,515 figures which was the 76% of the overall New York City population. Furthermore, in 2000 19% proportation and in 1900 54% proportion allocated to Mahattan district.

In Contrast, all other districts namely, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, Staten Island had received the lowest part of the overall New York population with 24% with 18,701 numbers in 1800 and in 1900 they got the 46% and in 2000 they allocated the 81% proportion with 6,471,089 figures.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You identify the main contrast clearly: Manhattan held the largest share in 1800, whereas the other districts together dominated by 2000. The figures you include—60,515 and 76% for Manhattan in 1800, and 6,471,089 and 81% for the other districts in 2000—match the tables. However, the overview is not fully precise: Manhattan had the lowest share in 2000, but not the lowest population across the districts individually, since the table groups the other four together. You also omit the total-city growth from 79,216 to 8,009,185 and do not report Manhattan’s population decline after 1900. These relevant features are addressed less fully than the percentage comparisons; include them to make the summary more complete.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a clear overall arrangement: an introduction, an overview, and separate paragraphs for Manhattan and the other districts. This makes the main comparison easy to follow, and transitions such as “Overall,” “Firstly,” and “In Contrast” signal the stages of the report. However, some linking is mechanical, and the final paragraph repeats the idea that the other districts had the smallest share in 1800 before listing later figures. The sequence within the Manhattan paragraph also moves from 1800 to 2000 and then back to 1900, which weakens progression. Present each group’s figures chronologically and use clearer references to distinguish population totals from percentages.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use relevant vocabulary for describing tables, including “population,” “proportion,” “overall,” and “recorded,” so the topic remains clear. There is some variety in how you introduce comparisons, but several choices are inaccurate or unnatural for this task. For example, districts do not “receive” a population share, and “allocated” suggests that the figures were deliberately assigned. “Proportation” is not the correct word, while “figures” and “numbers” are imprecise when referring to population totals. The spelling of “Mahattan” also needs correction. More precise collocations such as “accounted for,” “stood at,” and “population share” would make the report more natural and exact.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mix of sentence forms, including a complex introductory sentence with “while” and an overview using “In contrast.” Most of the intended meaning is understandable, but some grammatical errors remain. In “it recorded the 60,515 figures which was the 76%,” the article and the relative-clause verb do not fit the plural noun; a clearer form is “its population was 60,515, representing 76%.” The phrase “in 2000 19% proportion and in 1900 54% proportion allocated” lacks a complete verb structure. There are also awkward article and preposition patterns, such as “with 24% with 18,701 numbers.” Build complete clauses around each figure and check agreement, articles, and punctuation.

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.