Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.0 · IELTS Academic Practice Accelerator · 2026-09-22
IELTS Writing Task 1 question
The line graph shows the number of first time visitors and returning visitors who visited Caryl Island from 2000 to 2008.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The line graph shows the number of first time visitors and returning visitors who visited Caryl Island from 2000 to 2008.
Student answer (Band 5.0)
The line graph illustrates the total number of visitors who visited in Caryl island in the year of 2000 and 2008.
Overall, this line graph accounted the number of visitors who had visited the recent last years. blue line is representing the first time visitors which shows the 8000 number of visitors in 2000 and than gradually decline the visitors ratio in the year of 2002. At that point number of visitors are sharply escalate. In 2008 visitors ratio is 12000.
On the other hand, red line represents the returning visitors. there are lot of changes in 2000 number of visitors are substantially rise. At the maximum ratio of returning visitors are 14000 in 2006. 2008 have a same number of visitors of both first time and returning. 2001 both visitors are combined at the same point and number of visitors are 6000 in Caryl island.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.0 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.0 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.0 |
| Overall | 5.0 |
Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.0
The response attempts to summarize the line graph showing visitors to Caryl Island, but it falls short of the 150-word minimum, containing only 146 words. In terms of content, the overview is extremely vague, stating only that it accounted for visitors in 'recent last years'. The student reports some data points, such as 8,000 for first-time visitors in 2000 and 14,000 in 2006 for returning visitors, but there are notable misinterpretations of the chart. For example, the claim that 2008 had the same number of visitors for both groups is factually incorrect based on the visual data, and references to years like 2001 do not correspond to data points on the graph. Due to the under-length penalty, vague overview, and inaccuracies in reporting the data, a band score of 5.0 is appropriate.
Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.0
The response shows an attempt to structure the information by dividing the text into an introduction, an overview/first category, and a second category. However, paragraphing is poorly handled, with the main body lumped into a single block alongside the introduction. Cohesive devices are weak and repetitive, relying on basic transitions like 'On the other hand' and temporal markers like 'In 2008' or 'At that point'. Furthermore, referencing is frequently unclear, such as the sudden mention of '2001 both visitors are combined' without clear logical progression or accurate data backing. The overall arrangement lacks a smooth logical flow, leading to a score of 5.0.
Lexical Resource — Band 5.0
The vocabulary used is quite basic and repetitive, with frequent reliance on simple words like 'number of visitors', 'point', and 'year'. There are attempts to use less common vocabulary, such as 'gradually decline' and 'sharply escalate', but these are undermined by word-choice errors, incorrect collocations, and awkward phrasing, such as 'visitors ratio' instead of 'visitor numbers' or 'proportion of visitors'. Spelling is generally acceptable, but lexical control is limited, placing the response firmly at band 5.0.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0
The student attempts a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, but control over grammar is weak. There are frequent grammatical errors, particularly with subject-verb agreement and prepositional use, such as 'who visited in Caryl island' instead of 'who visited Caryl Island', and 'than gradually decline the visitors ratio' which lacks a clear subject. Punctuation is also erratic, with missing capitalisation in places and run-on phrasing. Because these frequent errors cause occasional difficulty for the reader and show limited accurate structural variety, the grammar score is 5.0.
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.