Band 4.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 4.5 · IELTS Momentum Workout · 2026-10-13

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 4.5)

This chart shows exports from EU countries to India and China in 2000 and 2011. This pie chart shows EU countries exports good to India and China in 2000 and 2011.

In 2000, UK was 29 percent good exports to India Which was the highest exports EU country. Austria was 1 percent good exports to India which was the lowest exports EU country. Belgium was 25 percent good exports to India. Germany was 15 percent good exports to India. Finland,Sweden and Spain was 2 percent good exports to India.Germany was 38 percent good exports to China which was the highest good exports EU country. Austria and Spain was 2 percent good exports to China which was the lowest good exports EU countries. France was 13 percent good exports to China. UK and Italy was 9 percent good exports to China.

In 2011, Germany was 48 percent good exports to China and 25 percent good exports to India which was the highest good exports EU country. Austria and Finland was 2 percent good exports to China and also same percent good exports to India.

Germany was increased the exports to China and India. It's means India and China was more compitable to exports good from Germany.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 4.5

You identify the topic and report several accurate figures, including the UK’s 29% share of exports to India in 2000 and Germany’s 38% share to China that year. However, the response covers the charts only partially: most 2011 figures are omitted, and there is no clear overview of the main patterns across both destinations and years. The claim that Germany had the highest share in 2011 is accurate for China, but not for India, where Belgium’s 20% was below Germany’s 25%—so Germany was highest there, too; this comparison could be stated more clearly. The final claim that India and China were “more compitable” is unsupported and unclear. To strengthen the report, summarise the major shifts, such as Germany’s growing shares and the UK’s declining shares, and select representative comparisons.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 4.5

The response has a basic chronological structure, with one paragraph for 2000 and another for 2011, and the repeated country-and-percentage pattern makes some details easy to locate. However, ideas are not arranged into a clear overall progression: the opening repeats the task description, the 2000 paragraph moves between India and China without a consistent comparison, and the 2011 paragraph gives only a few details before an unclear conclusion. Linking is limited, with repeated use of “which was” and little signalling of contrasts or changes. Organise the report around an overview followed by focused comparisons, and use links such as “by contrast,” “whereas,” and “over the period” to show how the figures relate.

Lexical Resource: Band 4.5

Vocabulary is basic and repetitive, particularly the repeated phrase “good exports” and the frequent use of “was” to describe shares. These choices make some information difficult to interpret, as in “UK was 29 percent good exports to India.” There are also inaccurate or unsuitable expressions, including “more compitable to exports good,” which obscures the intended meaning. You do use relevant terms such as “highest” and “lowest,” and the country names and percentages are generally communicated. To improve, use precise chart language and collocations—for example, say a country “accounted for” a share or its “proportion rose/fell”—and avoid repeating the same wording for every figure.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 4.5

The response relies mainly on short, simple statements, with little variety in sentence structure. Frequent errors in agreement and sentence construction sometimes make the relationships between figures unclear. For example, “Finland,Sweden and Spain was 2 percent” needs a plural verb, while “Austria and Spain was” has the same agreement problem. The construction “Germany was increased the exports” also uses an incorrect verb form, and “India and China was” does not agree with its plural subject. Punctuation is inconsistent, including missing spaces after commas and an unnecessary capital in “Which.” Practise accurate patterns such as “Germany’s share increased” and “Austria and Spain each accounted for 2%,” then combine these with a few well-controlled comparison sentences.

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.