Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · 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 5.5)

The given pie charts illustrate the exports of goods from various european countries to India and China over the period of 2000 and 2011.

In general, in 2000 the exports of goods to india and china the highest contribution was occured by uk and germany respectively, whereas in 2011 in india and china the same country germany was seemed to accounted for the highest percentage.

Looking at the details in the pie charts, it is clear that in 2000 the transportation of products to india and china the similar pattern of share was followed by austria,finland,netherlands,belgium and other countries.The greatest contribution of exporting goods in india was of UK and belgium of 29% and 25% respectively, while in china germany and france accounted for the most of its share.

Comparatively, in 2011 the country who transported most of items to india was germany and those who had least proportion of exporting goods were austria and finland.Moreover, in china germany contributed to 48% and france comprised of 10% in exportation.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You identify the main leaders accurately: the UK had the largest share of exports to India in 2000, while Germany led China, and Germany became the leading exporter to both destinations in 2011. The figures you give for the UK and Belgium in India in 2000 and Germany and France in China in 2011 are also correct. However, the overview is unclear in places, and the comparison of the two years is only partly developed. For example, you do not mention Germany’s rise in India from 15% to 25% or its increase in China from 38% to 48%, while the claim that Austria, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium and “other countries” followed a similar pattern is vague and not well supported. Select a few key changes and compare them explicitly.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, an overview and two detail paragraphs, with a general movement from 2000 to 2011. Linking expressions such as “In general,” “Looking at the details” and “Comparatively” help signal the stages of the report. However, progression within the detail paragraphs is not always clear. The sentence beginning “in 2000 the transportation of products…” combines several countries without explaining the comparison, and the final paragraph shifts between India and China without a clear organising principle. Some references, such as “the same country,” require the reader to infer which country is meant. Grouping the figures by destination and comparing both years within each group would make the information easier to follow.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use a reasonable range of topic-related vocabulary, including “contribution,” “accounted for,” “proportion” and “comprised.” These attempts to avoid repeating “exports” show some flexibility. However, several choices are inaccurate or unnatural for describing chart data: “transportation of products,” “exportation,” and “the greatest contribution of exporting goods” are awkward, and “the country who transported most of items” does not express the data precisely. There are also spelling and capitalisation slips, including “european,” “india” and “china.” Aim for standard chart language such as “share of exports,” “accounted for” and “represented,” and check country names and sentence-initial capitalisation.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt both simple and more complex sentence forms, including a contrast with “whereas” and a comparison introduced by “while.” However, errors in sentence construction and verb forms are noticeable and sometimes make the meaning difficult to follow. For example, “the highest contribution was occured by” has an incorrect passive construction, while “Germany was seemed to accounted for” combines incompatible verb forms. The opening overview also lacks a clear grammatical structure: “in 2000 the exports … the highest contribution was…” needs a subject and verb arrangement that clearly identifies the leading exporter. Review passive forms, articles, agreement and punctuation, and build complex sentences around a clear main clause.

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.