Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-09

IELTS Writing Task 1 question

The table below shows the change in some household types in Great Britain from 1971 to 2007.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

PEOPLE IN HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD AND FAMILY

Student answer (Band 5.5)

The given table illustrates the proportion of residents in different type of household in Great Britain from 1971 to 2007.

Overall, The families which consist of dependent childrens incorporated highest ratio in 1971, which dramatically plunged by 2007.By contrast, the households which contained lone parents and one person exhibited least percentage of residents, which marginally rises till 2007.while, one-family and couple accommodations remain empty till 2007.

In 1971, the one-person accommodation incorporated 6%, which increased to 12% in 2001 and remain same in year 2007.Similarly,The lone-parent households experienced a surge from 4% in 1971 to 12% in 2001 and 2007.The non-dependent children families covered residents of 10% in first decade, hit a low of 11% in 1991 and reached to 9% in 2007.In contrast, the accommodations of dependent childrens registered a culmination of 52%, which is higher as compared to other families and plummeted to roughly 36% by 2007.Furthermore, The no-children families had members of 19% which soared to 25% by 2007.

Although,the dependent children families recorded a decline but it still remained higher preferance by 2007 and independent children households demonstrated least members till 2007.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You identify several important trends, including the fall in households with dependent children from 52% to 36% and the rise in one-person and lone-parent households. However, the overview contains a major misreading: it says “one-family and couple accommodations remain empty,” although the table gives figures for these categories, and the no-children couple group rises from 19% to 25%. The claim that lone-parent and one-person households had the “least percentage” is also inaccurate across the period, since non-dependent-child households were lower in some years. Some details are reported clearly, but the non-dependent-child figures are described incorrectly: 11% in 1991 was a peak, not a low. A more accurate overview and careful checking of comparisons would make the summary more complete and reliable.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a recognisable structure, with an introduction, an overview and paragraphs of supporting figures. It also uses linking expressions such as “Overall,” “Similarly” and “In contrast” to signal relationships. However, progression is weakened by the inaccurate overview and by ideas that are difficult to follow, particularly “one-family and couple accommodations remain empty till 2007.” The final sentence repeats the decline in dependent-child households and the low level of non-dependent-child households rather than adding a clear concluding comparison. Some transitions are awkward or incorrectly punctuated, and several sentences run together without spaces after full stops. Grouping the categories into clearer comparisons and avoiding repeated points would improve the flow.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You attempt a varied range of vocabulary, including “plunged,” “surge,” “registered” and “incorporated,” and the general topic remains understandable. However, several choices are inaccurate or unnatural for describing percentages and household categories. For example, “incorporated highest ratio” and “families covered residents” do not express the data clearly, while “culmination” is unsuitable for a figure that is simply the highest value. “Remain empty” also gives the wrong meaning for categories with recorded percentages. There are noticeable word-form and spelling problems, such as “childrens” and “preferance,” and repeated use of “accommodation” for household types. Prefer precise, neutral terms such as “accounted for,” “proportion” and “households.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

The response attempts both simple and more complex sentences, including clauses introduced by “which” and contrastive structures. However, errors are frequent enough to make some sentences difficult to process. Examples include “different type of household,” where the noun should be plural, and “which marginally rises,” where the tense does not match the past period. Subject–verb agreement is also faulty in “the one-person accommodation … increased … and remain same.” Sentence boundaries and punctuation are inconsistent: several full stops are followed immediately by a capital letter without a space, and “Although” is incorrectly separated from the clause it introduces. Use consistent past-tense reporting and check agreement, articles and sentence boundaries.

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.