Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Momentum Workout · 2026-08-22

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 5.5)

The given pie charts depicts the information about EU export of goods to India and China in year 2000 and 2011. The data has been calibrated into percentage.

Overall , it is crystal clear that highest value recorded by United kingdom export to India . However Austria and Finland show similar trend in exporting goods to china .

At a glance , in year 2000 the highest value recorded by UK exactly 28% . which followed by Belgium approximately 25% . While Germany export EU to India are 15%. where as other countries did not surpass by 10% by export EU to India . However in china largest value carried by Germany in exporting goods to china as 38 % in year 2000 . UK and Italy shows similar trend exactly 9%. Sweden contribute 8% in exports goods .While Netherland and other countries remain half from Sweden . All remaining countries contribute less than 5 % in year 2000.

Moving ahead , in year 2011 highest ratio carried by Germany as 25 % in exporting EU to India .Where as UK and Belgium contribute 13 and 20 percent in exports .Other countries remain less than 10% in contributing goods . In case of China Germany contribute the largest percentage in sharing of goods to china in year 2011 then France show 10 % While other countries did not pass by 8% in year 2011 to exports EU goods to China .

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.5

The response covers the main features of the pie charts, identifying key trends and making comparisons between the years and countries. However, the analysis is somewhat superficial. For example, the description of the data is often repetitive, and the comparison between countries could be more analytical. While the main features are highlighted, the response lacks a clear, cohesive overview that synthesises the data effectively. The inclusion of specific percentages is accurate, but the overall structure of the report is slightly disjointed, which prevents it from reaching a higher band. To improve, ensure that the overview highlights the most significant changes or contrasts rather than just listing data points.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.5

The response is organised into paragraphs, but the logical flow is occasionally interrupted by awkward phrasing and mechanical transitions. While cohesive devices like 'However', 'While', and 'Moving ahead' are used, they are sometimes placed incorrectly or used to connect ideas that do not logically follow one another. The referencing is occasionally unclear, such as in the phrase 'Netherland and other countries remain half from Sweden', which is difficult to interpret. Paragraphing is present, but the internal structure of the paragraphs could be more cohesive to ensure a smoother progression of information throughout the report.

Lexical Resource — Band 5.5

The vocabulary is generally adequate for the task, but it is somewhat repetitive and lacks precision. Phrases like 'highest value recorded by' and 'contribute the largest percentage' are used repeatedly. There are also issues with word choice and collocation, such as 'data has been calibrated into percentage' and 'sharing of goods to china'. The range of vocabulary is limited, and there is little attempt to use more sophisticated or varied terminology to describe trends, such as 'fluctuated', 'accounted for', or 'experienced a significant shift'. Improving lexical variety would significantly enhance the quality of the report.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.5

The response contains a mix of simple and some complex sentence structures, but there are frequent grammatical errors that occasionally impede readability. Issues include incorrect subject-verb agreement (e.g., 'pie charts depicts'), missing articles (e.g., 'in year 2000'), and awkward sentence construction (e.g., 'Germany export EU to India are 15%'). Punctuation is also inconsistent, particularly with the placement of commas and periods. While the meaning is generally clear, the high frequency of these errors prevents the response from achieving a higher score. Focusing on basic sentence structure and proofreading for articles and verb forms would be beneficial.

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.