Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · IELTS Momentum Workout · 2026-10-09

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 stipulated pie charts compare the information regarding the goods exported by numerous European countries to India and China during the year 2000 and 2011.

From a bird's-eye view, it is crystal clear that the maximum proportion of goods were exported by U.K., whereas, Austria exported the minimum number of products to India during the given period of time.

To commence with, during 2000, the percentage of goods exported by United Kingdom to India was recorded at 29%, while, Germany and Belgium was accounted at 15% and 25%. Besides this, the exports from Italy were inclined from 7% to 9% in the year 2011. In addition to it, a slight difference of 1% was noticed in the exports made by Sweden, Spain, Nertherlands and France between 2000(2%, 2%, 4% & 8%) and 2011(3%, 3%, 5% & 9%).

Moving ahead, the proportion of exported goods by Germany to China was accounted at 38% & 48% between the year 2000 and 2011, exhibiting the higher percentile than all other countries provided. Apart from this, the exports made by France were declined to 10% during 2011. Furthermore, number of goods exported by U.K. were observed at 9% which further reduced to 7% in 2011. Moreover, the rest of the countries were so dominantly contributed to less than 8%.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You identify several important patterns, including the UK’s leading share of exports to India in 2000, Germany’s dominance in exports to China, and the rise in Germany’s share for both destinations. However, the overview is inaccurate: Austria was not the smallest exporter to India throughout the period, since it had the lowest share in 2000 but Finland did in 2011, tied with Austria. The overview also misses the major contrast that the UK’s share to India fell sharply while Germany’s rose, and that Germany dominated China exports in both years. Some details are incomplete or imprecise: the China figures for France and the UK are given without their starting values, and “the rest” is not clearly identified. A more balanced overview and fuller comparisons would strengthen coverage.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction, an overview, and separate paragraphs for India and China. This makes the two destinations easy to follow, and linking phrases such as “Moving ahead” and “Furthermore” signal progression. However, the organisation within paragraphs is sometimes list-like, with several figures placed together without explaining their significance. The overview focuses only on India and does not prepare the reader for the China comparison. Some connectors are mechanical or do not express a clear relationship, such as “Apart from this” and “Moreover.” Grouping the main rises and falls, then using comparisons to connect related figures, would create a more coherent progression.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use a reasonable range of vocabulary for describing charts, including “proportion,” “exports,” “declined,” and “reduced,” and the meaning is generally understandable. There are also attempts at more formal phrasing, such as “From a bird’s-eye view” and “exhibiting.” However, several expressions are unnatural or imprecise for this task: “stipulated pie charts,” “maximum proportion of goods were exported,” and “higher percentile” do not sound idiomatic in data reporting. “Number of goods” is also unsuitable when describing percentages. There is a spelling error in “Nertherlands,” and “dominantly contributed” is an inaccurate collocation. Prefer direct, precise terms such as “share,” “accounted for,” and “exported.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mix of simple and complex sentences, including clauses introduced by “whereas” and “while,” and most of the information remains understandable. Some grammatical errors nevertheless affect accuracy. For example, “Germany and Belgium was accounted at” has a subject–verb agreement problem and an incorrect passive construction; write “Germany and Belgium accounted for…” “The exports made by France were declined” also uses an incorrect passive form; “France’s share declined” is more accurate. In “the maximum proportion of goods were exported,” the subject and verb do not agree. Commas are also misplaced in phrases such as “whereas, Austria” and “while, Germany.” More consistent control of agreement, verb forms, and punctuation would improve clarity.

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.