Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 20 · 2026-11-03

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 5.0)

The below tables shows the information about changes in total population of new york city from 1800 to 2000 and it also shows the information for the ive different districts of the city like (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, Staten Island) over the same period of time .

The population of the new york city were 79,216 in 1800 and it increased immensely in thenext 200 years . The Population were 3,437,202 in 1900 and went up in the 2000 . The population went upto 8,009,185 in 2000 . And it was the rapid increase as compared to the past years .

However , The second graph shows the information about the district of the New york city ( Manhattan ) . The pesentage of the total population of the Manhattan district was 76% and the Population were 60,515 in numbers . But the population has increased over the next years . The persentage plummated to 54 % as compared to 76% and it also went down in the year 2000 and close upto 19% only.

Moreover , In the other district of the new yok city like (Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, Staten Island) . The population were only 18,701 in 1800 and the persentage was 24% . O n the other hand , In 1900 the population increased immensely and persentage was 46 % and it 1,587,109 in numbers . Furthermore , In the year 2000 the persentage increased sharply and close upto 81% and the population was 6,471,089 in numbers . It was as high as compared to previous years.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You report the main figures for all three years and both population groups, and the data you give are accurate. You also identify the key contrast: Manhattan’s share falls from 76% to 19%, while the other districts’ share rises from 24% to 81%. However, the response mainly lists figures rather than clearly summarising the overall pattern. It would be useful to state explicitly that the city’s total population grew substantially, while Manhattan’s population rose to a peak in 1900 and then declined by 2000; the other districts continued to grow. Some comparisons, such as the change in Manhattan’s actual population between 1900 and 2000, are not reported. A clearer overview and fuller comparison would make the response more complete.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.0

The response has a basic paragraph structure: it introduces the tables, then discusses the total population, Manhattan, and the other districts. This gives the reader a general sense of how the information is organised. However, progression within paragraphs is often repetitive, and linking expressions are sometimes mechanical or awkward. For example, “However” introduces the Manhattan figures without a clear contrast, while “Moreover” and “On the other hand” do not always show the relationship between the data accurately. Several sentences repeat that figures “increased” or “went up” without connecting the changes into a clear comparison. Grouping related figures and using more precise links—such as “by contrast” for the districts’ changing shares—would improve the flow and make the comparisons easier to follow.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use some relevant vocabulary for describing data, including “population,” “percentage,” “increased,” “decreased,” and “rapid increase.” This is enough to communicate the broad subject, but the range is limited and several choices are inaccurate or unnatural. “Plummated” is not the appropriate form here; use “fell” or “declined.” Phrases such as “close upto 19%” and “as high as compared to previous years” are also unclear or awkward. Spelling errors, including “persentage,” “Manhattan” inconsistently capitalised, and “new yok,” are noticeable and reduce precision. Aim for a small set of accurate reporting verbs and collocations, such as “accounted for,” “rose to,” and “fell to,” rather than repeating “went up” and “increased immensely.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

The response attempts both simple and joined sentences, but the range is limited and errors occur frequently. Subject–verb agreement is inconsistent: “The tables shows” should be “The tables show,” and “The population … were” should be “The population … was.” There are also problems with articles, prepositions, and sentence construction, as in “in thenext 200 years,” “went up in the 2000,” and “it 1,587,109 in numbers.” Some punctuation and spacing make sentence boundaries harder to read, particularly around commas and the fragment beginning “Moreover, In the other district…”. These errors do not prevent the reader from understanding the main figures, but they make the account less clear. Practise accurate past-tense reporting and complete sentence patterns before adding more complex structures.

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.