Band 7.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 7.0 · IELTS Academic Practice Accelerator · 2026-10-18

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 7.0)

The line graph compares the number of first time visitors and returning visitors to Caryl Island between 2000 and 2008.

Overall, although in the beginning of the period the total number of visitors travelling to Caryl Island were significantly greater than returning visitors, by the end of the period returning visitors were more than first time visitors. Returning visitors witnessed an upward trend until 2006, while first time visitors dipped sharply in 2002 before increasing gradually. Despite increasing steadily, the total number of first time visitors always remained less than returning visitors since 2002.

In 2000, the total number of first time visitors were around 8000, while returning visitors were approximately at just 3000. Notably in 2002, the total number of returning visitors increased significantly to almost 10000, whereas first time travellers dropped to 4000.

By 2006, returning visitors peaked at around 15000 before falling to just below 14000 in 2008. By contrast, after the dramatic fall in 2002, the total number of first time visitors steadily increased to 6000 in 2004, 10000 in 2006, and ending roughly at 12000 in 2008. After witnessing a huge plummet in 2002, the total figure of first time visitors to the island remained always below the return travellers.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.5

The response selects the main trends and gives a clear overview: returning visitors rose to a peak in 2006 before declining, while first-time visitors fell in 2002 and then recovered. Most figures are accurately reported, including the starting values and the 2002 comparison. However, the overview says first-time visitors “always remained less than returning visitors since 2002,” which is not true for 2002–2004: first-time visitors were lower in both years, but the statement is broadly consistent with the data; the more significant issue is that the 2006 first-time figure is given as 10,000 rather than about 9,300. The claim that first-time visitors increased “gradually” also simplifies the sharper rise after 2004. Overall, the task is well covered, with some over-generalisation and a small numerical inaccuracy.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response is organised into an introduction, an overview and two detail paragraphs, and the information generally progresses chronologically. Comparisons are made clearly with phrases such as “whereas” and “By contrast.” However, cohesion is not always economical or precise. The final sentence repeats the point that first-time visitors remained below returning visitors, already stated in the overview, and “After witnessing a huge plummet” repeats the earlier description of the 2002 fall. Some linking expressions, including “Notably” and “Despite increasing steadily,” feel slightly mechanical or do not add a clear relationship. To strengthen the progression, group the two series’ changes by period and avoid restating the same comparison at the end.

Lexical Resource: Band 7.0

There is a sufficient range of vocabulary to describe trends and comparisons, including “dipped sharply,” “increased significantly,” “peaked,” and “fell.” These choices help communicate the main movements, and the meaning remains clear. Some less common expressions show awareness of formal style, but several are imprecise or awkward in this context: “witnessed an upward trend” and “huge plummet” are less natural ways to describe a data series, while “total figure” is vague. “Travelling” and “travellers” also vary the label unnecessarily when the graph distinguishes first-time and returning visitors. Use concise, conventional chart language such as “rose,” “reached a peak,” and “the number of visitors,” and keep category labels consistent for greater precision.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.5

The response uses a mix of simple and complex sentences, including effective contrast clauses with “although,” “while,” and “whereas.” Most sentences are understandable, and the overall meaning is not impeded. Some grammatical errors remain, particularly subject–verb agreement: “the total number … were significantly greater” and “the total number … were around 8000” should use “was,” since the grammatical subject is singular. The construction “returning visitors were approximately at just 3000” is also awkwardly formed, and the final sentence has an unclear structure around “remained always below.” Review agreement with phrases such as “the number of,” and simplify sentence patterns when needed. More consistently accurate clauses would improve control while retaining the range already shown.

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.