Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · IELTS Momentum Workout · 2026-10-19

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 5.0)

The pie charts illustrate the EU exports of goods to india and china from 2000 to 2011.

Overall, in 2000, United Kingdom had the largest proportion, however Austria and Finland accounted for the smallest proportions of EU exports. In addition, compare to in 2011, Germany had the largest percentage, while Finland and Austria still remained unchanged.

In 2000, the percentage of United KIngdom was 29%, whereas Belgium had the second of largest proportion (25%). Germany, accounted for 15% and compare to the proportion of others, it was three times of more. Moreover, France it had 8%, Italy 7%, Netherland 4% and Sweden, Finland and spain had 2%. Austria had the smallest proportion in 2000 (1%).

In 2011, the proportions of EU exports of goods to India had changed. Compare to 2000, Germany had the largest proportion (25%). Belgium decreased slightly (20%), And United Kingdom significantly declined from 29% to 13%. Furthemore, France, Italy and others rose. Percentage of France, Italy and others was 9%. Spain and sweden had 3%. The smallest proportion of EU exports in 2011, were Finland and Austria. (2%).

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 4.0

The response includes an overview and selects some relevant figures, especially the leading shares for the UK and Belgium in 2000 and Germany and the UK in 2011. However, it addresses the charts only minimally: it discusses India alone and omits all figures and comparisons for China, despite the task covering exports to both destinations. Some details are also inaccurate or unclear: Austria and Finland were not the only smallest shares in 2000, as Spain and Sweden also had 2%, and the claim that Austria and Finland remained unchanged overlooks Austria’s rise from 1% to 2%. The overview therefore does not capture the main features of both charts. Cover both destinations and report the most important changes accurately.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.0

The response has a recognisable structure, with an introduction, an overview and separate paragraphs for 2000 and 2011. This gives the reader some organisation, and the time-based sequence is easy to follow. However, the progression is limited because the discussion shifts between years without comparing India with China, and the repeated transitions “In 2000” and “In 2011” do not create a complete account of the data. Some linking is awkward or repetitive, such as “Moreover” and “Furthermore,” while “compare to” is used repeatedly and does not clearly express the intended comparison. Group the information by destination or by major trends, and use precise links to show contrasts and changes.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

The response uses some task-relevant vocabulary, including “proportion,” “percentage,” “declined,” and “rose,” and the reader can generally understand the intended comparisons. However, the range is limited and several word choices or collocations are inaccurate: “the second of largest proportion,” “three times of more,” and “compare to in 2011” are not natural expressions. There are also spelling and capitalisation slips, including “KIngdom,” “Furthemore,” “Netherland,” and lower-case country names. These errors reduce precision, particularly when describing data. Build a more reliable set of chart-reporting phrases, such as “accounted for,” “ranked second,” and “increased from … to …,” and check spelling and country-name capitalisation.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

The response attempts a mixture of simple statements and longer sentences, and some basic clauses communicate figures clearly, for example, “Belgium decreased slightly (20%).” However, complex attempts are often faulty, and grammatical errors occur frequently enough to make several sentences awkward or unclear. Examples include “Overall, in 2000, United Kingdom had,” which lacks an article, “compare to in 2011,” and “Germany, accounted for 15% and compare to the proportion of others, it was three times of more.” The sentence “France it had 8%” also has an unnecessary subject pronoun, while “The smallest proportion … were” has a subject–verb agreement problem. Practise accurate comparison clauses and check articles, agreement, and sentence boundaries.

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.