Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · IELTS Momentum Workout · 2026-10-04

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 6.0)

The pie charts given depicts the percentage of export from different european union countries to india and china in two different years - 2000 and 2011.

Overall, Germany, UK and Belgium were the main players of overall export to both India and china in given years. In 2000 UK leads the export percentage to India and Austria exported least. On the other hand, Germany was the highest exporter to china in the same year, where spain and austria exported least as per chart. In 2011 Germany exported most to both India and China, where Austria and Finland contributed minimum.

In 2000 United Kingdom had 29% export to india out of 100 from EU with Belgium at second place contributing 25% and Germany was at third with 15%. No other country exported more then 10% where Austria was least and sweden and Spain were at second last with 2%. Exports to china were most from Germany upto 38%, with france at second with 13% and UK was at 9% and rest were below 9%.

In 2011 Germany took place of UK with 25% exports to India and Gelgium exported 20% where UK exported 13% and rest below 10%. In the same year Germany exported highest to China as well with 48% france could reach 10% where all other countries were below 10%.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

The response successfully addresses all parts of the task by providing an overview of the main features and making relevant comparisons between the EU exports to India and China in 2000 and 2011. It highlights key trends, such as Germany becoming the leading exporter to both destinations by 2011, and contrasts the changing shares of countries like the United Kingdom and Belgium. While some details are slightly underdeveloped—such as grouping minor contributors together rather than elaborating on their minor shifts—the overall selection of information satisfies the requirements for the task. The response bridges the gap toward a higher band by offering a clearer, more fully extended analysis of the minor countries alongside the dominant players, but it achieves a solid level of task coverage by accurately identifying the main comparative shifts across the years.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The text maintains a coherent overall arrangement and presents a logical progression of ideas from the introduction to the overview and body paragraphs. Each paragraph focuses on a distinct aspect of the visual data, moving from general trends into specific country-by-country figures. However, cohesion at times feels a bit mechanical or repetitive in how sentences are linked, relying heavily on basic conjunctions and transitional phrases like 'In 2000' and 'In 2011'. Referencing is generally clear, though paragraphing could be structured more cleanly to separate the two target countries or years more effectively. To reach a higher band, the writer needs to employ a wider variety of sophisticated cohesive devices and ensure that transitions between sentences flow more naturally without over-relying on chronological markers.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

The vocabulary used is adequate for the task, allowing the student to communicate basic trends and proportions using terms like 'percentage of export', 'highest exporter', and 'main players'. The student attempts some less common vocabulary, but there are noticeable instances of inaccurate word choice, word form, and spelling—such as failing to capitalise proper nouns ('european union', 'india', 'china', 'spain', 'sweden', 'france', 'gelgium') and using 'export' as a countable noun ('export to india' instead of 'exports'). Spelling slips and minor lexical inaccuracies do not seriously impede communication, but they restrict the score. To progress to a higher band, the writer must expand their range of functional synonyms for describing data changes and maintain strict accuracy with word forms, capitalization, and collocations.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

The response demonstrates a mix of simple and some attempted complex sentence forms, providing a reasonable variety of structures. However, grammatical accuracy is inconsistent. There are several errors in subject-verb agreement and tense consistency, such as 'The pie charts given depicts' (should be 'depict') and missing articles ('with france at second with 13% and UK was at 9%'). Punctuation is also sparse, with run-on clauses linked by coordinating conjunctions rather than appropriate punctuation or subordination. These errors rarely impede communication entirely, placing the grammar comfortably within the mid-range. To achieve a higher band, the writer needs to incorporate a wider variety of error-free complex sentences and pay closer attention to articles, capitalization of proper nouns, and structural precision.

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.