Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · 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 6.5)

The pie charts illustrate the proportion of various EU countries which contributed in exporting several materials to India and China and depicts the change in their exports for a time period of 11 years from 2000 till 2011.

Overall, as for the comparision for exports in india, the most striking change observed is the reduce in proportion of the United Kingdom, whose exports contribution was the largest in 2000, which is dropped significantly in 2011. In contrast, as for exports for China, we can see the dominance of Germany in the contribution proportion over the period of time.

For India, in the year 2000, the top exporters were United Kingdom (29%), Beligum (25%), and Germany (15%) and all the other nations contributed less than 10% each. Moving forward to 2011, we can see a significant change in the contributers where, UK dropped to 13%, Beligum to 20% but, Germany's contribution increased to 25%. The contribution for all other nations were more or less the same as the previous time period.

Furthermore, as for China, we can see a more balanced profile with some few changes in contribution proportions where the top contributers in the year 2000 were Germany (38%) and France (13%) while the other nations contributing less than 10% each. Moving to 2011, Germany showed its dominance over the years and resulted in contributing around 48%, while France dropped to 10% and the other nations such as Finland, Belgium, Austria, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, Netherlands, and Italy, remained less than 10% over the period.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.5

You identify the main contrasts accurately: the UK’s share of exports to India fell from 29% to 13%, while Germany’s rose to 25%; for China, Germany remained the largest exporter and increased from 38% to 48%. The overview clearly highlights these dominant trends, and the response selects relevant leading contributors rather than listing every figure. Most reported figures are accurate. However, the claim that all other Indian contributors were “more or less the same” is too broad: for example, Belgium fell from 25% to 20%, while “Other” rose from 5% to 9%. The China description also says the profile was “more balanced” without explaining that Germany’s share was already much larger than any other country’s. More precise comparisons would strengthen an otherwise well-focused summary.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 7.0

The response has a clear four-part structure: an introduction, an overview, and separate paragraphs for India and China. This gives the information a logical progression, and signposts such as “Overall,” “For India,” and “Furthermore” help readers follow the comparisons. The country-by-country organisation is appropriate for the charts. Some linking is less effective because phrases such as “Moving forward” and “Moving to 2011” are repeated and do little beyond marking time. The long final sentence also groups many countries together, making the comparison less easy to process. Improve cohesion by varying transitions and using clearer references to the specific shares or changes being discussed, rather than relying on repeated time markers.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use a reasonable range of task-related vocabulary, including “proportion,” “dominance,” “contribution,” and “dropped significantly,” so the main comparisons are understandable. There are also attempts at more formal phrasing, such as “the most striking change observed.” However, several word choices and collocations are inaccurate or awkward: “countries which contributed in exporting,” “exports contribution,” and “balanced profile with some few changes” do not sound natural in this context. Spelling errors such as “comparision,” “Beligum,” and “contributers” also reduce accuracy. Aim for precise, conventional chart language and check spelling; for example, describe countries as accounting for a share of exports rather than contributing “in exporting.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

You attempt a mix of simple and complex sentences, including clauses beginning “whose” and “where,” and the overall meaning remains clear. Some sentence patterns are controlled, such as “the top exporters were…” followed by figures. However, grammatical errors occur in several places. In “the most striking change … is the reduce … which is dropped,” the tense and verb forms are not correctly constructed; “the other nations contributed less than 10% each” is followed by the mismatched “the contribution … were.” There are also article and preposition problems in “for exports for China” and punctuation issues around “where, UK dropped … but, Germany’s…”. Review tense consistency when describing past data, subject–verb agreement, and punctuation around clauses to make the complex sentences more accurate.

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.