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 pie charts beneath display imports in India and China by European countries in two different years.

Overall, Germany was key stakeholder in both years and countries, while germany had considerable percentage in Indian imports in 2000 & 2011. Spain, Sweden, Netherlands and Finland were accounted for significantly lower proportions in export by EU countries.

Looking first at India, the UK had constituted highest percentage i.e. 29% in the year 2000 and third highest, i.e. over one-tenth, in the year 2011. Belgium shared one-quarter of exports in first year, whereas one-fifth in the second year respectively. Germany was also an important exporter for India, it imported one-quarter in the year 2011 and 15 percent in 2011. Italy, France and Netherlands also shared moderate proportions in India's exports.

On the other hand, Germany had contributed significant proportions in Exports of China (over one-third in 2000 & nearly half in 2011). France contributed moderate shares in imports of India (13% and 10% in two years respectively).

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.0

You identify some important patterns, especially Germany’s strong share of exports to China and the UK’s decline in India, and you include several relevant figures. However, the response only partially covers the charts: the overview is unclear and does not compare the main patterns across both destinations. Some details are inaccurate or confusing. For example, Germany’s Indian share is given as “15 percent in 2011,” although it was 15% in 2000 and 25% in 2011. The final sentence describes France’s figures for China (13% and 10%) but calls them imports of India. Several other categories are only grouped vaguely as “moderate proportions.” A clearer overview and accurate, destination-specific comparisons would make the report more complete.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, an overview, and separate paragraphs beginning with India and China. Linking phrases such as “Looking first at India” and “On the other hand” help signal movement between points. However, progression is uneven because the China paragraph is very brief and the final comparison is difficult to follow: it shifts from China to “imports of India” without a clear connection. The overview also repeats Germany’s importance without clearly setting out the main contrasts. Some references, such as “the first year” and “the second year,” are understandable but could be more precise. Organise the body around clear comparisons and use explicit country and year references to improve cohesion.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use a reasonably varied range of vocabulary for describing proportions, including “considerable percentage,” “highest percentage,” “moderate proportions,” and “significant proportions.” This gives you options beyond repeating “share.” However, some word choices and collocations are inaccurate or unnatural, such as “key stakeholder” for a country’s export share and “Belgium shared one-quarter,” which makes the meaning less precise. “Imports” is also used repeatedly where the charts show exports, creating confusion about the data. Capitalisation is inconsistent in “germany” and “Exports.” Aim for precise chart language and natural collocations; this will help you express comparisons clearly while retaining the range you already attempt.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mix of simple and more complex sentences, including clauses linked with “while” and “whereas,” and most of the intended meaning can be followed. Some grammatical errors remain, however. In “Spain, Sweden, Netherlands and Finland were accounted for,” the passive construction is incorrect; use “accounted for” without “were.” The sentence “Germany was also an important exporter for India, it imported…” joins two independent clauses with only a comma. There is also a tense and year mismatch in “15 percent in 2011,” and the opening “had constituted” is not needed for this past-time comparison. Use consistent past simple forms, check articles and sentence boundaries, and proofread year references.

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.