Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · IELTS Momentum Workout · 2026-08-18

IELTS Writing Task 1 question

The pie charts below show exports from various EU countries to India and China in 2000 and 2011.

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

EU Exports of Goods to India and China in 2000 and 2011

Student answer (Band 5.0)

The chart illustrate numerous export to china and India from EU nation in 2000 and 2011. In 2000, most exports are mentioned from United Kingdom is 29% to India while 38% from Germany to China. Whereas Germany is also indicated in 2011, 25% of exports are mentioned to India and 48% to china.

In 2000, various countries exports are are noted in percentages to India such as, Austria 1%, Belgium 25%, Finland 2%, France 8%, Germany 15%, Italy 7%, Netherlands 4%, Spain 2%, Sweden 2%, United Kingdom 29% and others countries 5%. In exports to China from several EU countries like Austria 2%, Belgium 5%, Finland 6%, France 13%, Germany 38%, Italy9 %, Netherlands 4%, Spain 2%, Sweden 8%, United Kingdom 9% and others countries 4%.

In 2011, Germany shows higher exports to India and as well as to china of 25% and 48% respectively, followed by Belgium 20% to India and France 10% to China.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.0

The response addresses the task by identifying the main features of the pie charts. However, the report is essentially a list of data points rather than a summary. While you have included figures for both years, the lack of a clear overview or synthesis of trends makes it difficult to follow the 'big picture'. For example, you list every country's percentage for 2000, which is unnecessary and makes the report feel like a data dump. To improve, focus on grouping countries (e.g., those with significant growth vs. those that declined) and highlighting the most notable changes between 2000 and 2011 rather than reporting every single figure.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.5

The essay is organised into paragraphs, but the internal flow is weak. The second paragraph is a long, repetitive list of data that lacks logical progression or cohesive devices to connect the ideas. While you use some linking words like 'whereas' and 'in 2011', the transition between sentences is often mechanical. The referencing is sometimes unclear, and the lack of a concluding summary or a clear overview paragraph hinders the overall coherence of the response. Using more varied cohesive devices and grouping data logically would significantly improve the flow.

Lexical Resource — Band 5.0

The vocabulary is limited and repetitive. You rely heavily on the word 'exports' and 'mentioned', which makes the writing feel monotonous. There are also errors in word choice and form, such as 'numerous export' (should be 'exports') and 'others countries' (should be 'other countries'). You have attempted to use some specific terminology, but the range is not sufficient to demonstrate flexibility or precision. To reach a higher band, try to incorporate synonyms and more sophisticated reporting verbs or phrases to describe the data, such as 'accounted for', 'witnessed a rise', or 'remained stable'.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0

There are frequent grammatical errors throughout the text that occasionally impede clarity. Examples include 'The chart illustrate' (subject-verb agreement error), 'exports are are noted' (repetition), and 'Italy9 %' (spacing/formatting error). You rely mostly on simple sentence structures, and there is a lack of complex sentence forms. Punctuation is also inconsistent, particularly with the placement of commas and spacing around percentages. To improve, focus on subject-verb agreement, consistent tense usage (past tense for 2000/2011 data), and proofreading for basic mechanical errors.

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.