Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Momentum Workout · 2026-10-11

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 pie charts give information about the imports of India and China from many EU countries in 2000 and 2011.

Overall, while Germany accounted fo the largest proportion of goods to both India and China in 2011, Finland and Australia made up the lowest percentage of exports. Moreover, in 2000, India recieved most of its imports from the Uk, and China from Germany. By contrast, Spain and Austria's exports were the lowest to China. Austria's proportion was also the smallest in China's 2000 imports.

in 2000, The UK accounted for the largest proportion of EU exports to india, at 25%, compared with only 9% to China. Belgium ranked the second in india, at 25% and 5% in China. Austria made up only 1% of india's and imports from EU countries. It also made up the lowest proportion of the exoprted goods to China, in addition to Spain, at 2%.Meanwhile, Germany's percentage was moderate in China, at 13%. France also accounted for a similar number in China (13%).

In 2011, Germany accounted for the largest proportion of EU exports to both india and China, at 25% and 48%. Conversly, Austria made up the lowest proportion of imports to both India and China. Finland's figure of exports was the sams as Austria's to India. Belgium's percentage was 20% in india, which is the second highest number after Germany. However, it accounted for only 5% of China's imports.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You identify several important patterns, including Germany’s leading share of China’s exports in both years and the UK’s prominence in India in 2000. However, the overview contains significant inaccuracies: the largest share for India in 2000 was the UK’s 29%, not 25%, and Germany was not the largest supplier to India in 2011; Belgium led at 20%, while Germany had 25%. The claim that Finland and Australia were the smallest shares is also incorrect: the chart lists Austria, not Australia, and the lowest shares vary by destination and year. Some comparisons are useful, but coverage is selective and a few figures or descriptions are misread. A more accurate overview and clearer selection of key changes would strengthen the response.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction, an overview, and separate paragraphs for 2000 and 2011. This makes the time-based organisation easy to follow, and linking phrases such as “Moreover,” “By contrast,” and “Meanwhile” help connect comparisons. However, the overview repeats some details and includes claims that conflict with the later paragraphs, which weakens progression. For example, it says Germany was largest for both destinations in 2011, but the final paragraph identifies Belgium as India’s second-highest share and does not resolve the incorrect overview. Some transitions feel mechanical, and the reference in “It also made up” is not fully clear. Grouping the main rises and falls more consistently would improve cohesion.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use a relevant range of chart vocabulary, including “accounted for,” “proportion,” “ranked,” and “compared with,” which allows you to describe shares and make comparisons. However, several noticeable spelling and word-choice errors reduce precision: “recieved,” “exoprted,” and “Conversly” are misspelled, while “Australia” appears where the chart says Austria. Phrases such as “the same number” and “the second highest number” are less precise for percentages; “share” or “proportion” would be more appropriate. There is also repetition of “accounted for” and “made up.” Broader, accurately controlled alternatives such as “represented,” “stood at,” and “declined” would make the descriptions more concise and natural.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mixture of simple and complex sentences, including contrast structures such as “while Germany accounted…” and “By contrast…”. Most of the meaning remains understandable, but some grammatical and punctuation errors are evident. In “Belgium ranked the second in india,” the ordinal construction needs an article and a more natural pattern (“ranked second in India”); “Austria made up only 1% of india's and imports” has a faulty sentence structure. Capitalisation is inconsistent at sentence beginnings and for country names, and spacing after punctuation is sometimes missing, as in “2%.Meanwhile”. The sentence “Finland's figure of exports was the sams as Austria's” also needs a clearer grammatical construction. More careful editing would improve accuracy while retaining your sentence variety.

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.