Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · 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 6.0)

The pie charts give information about exports from different European Union regions to India and China between 2000 and 2011.

Overall, United Kingdom accounted for the higher proportion of exports to India in 2000 while Germany experienced high exports in 2011. However, in China, Germany was by far the most significant in both years.

Looking more closer to the graph, in 2000, United Kingdom exports at a rate of 29% that was the highest figure while in 2011 this number fell to 13%. Whereas, in 2011, Germany had exported at a proportion of 25% compared to 15% in 2000. Belgium experienced 25% of exports in 2000 and this figure decreased by a 5% in 2011. Finally, the rest of all the small countries just below 10% exports in both periods.

Regarding China, Germany had a totall exports of 38% in 2000, and this number was increased by 10%, reaching 48% in 2011 that contributed too much to exports. 9% of exports were occured in United Kingdom in 2000, while this figure fell slighty to just 7% in 2011. All the remaining countries coined below 10% to exports across China in both years.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

You identify the main contrasts: the UK had the largest share of exports to India in 2000, while Germany became more prominent by 2011, and Germany dominated exports to China in both years. The key figures for these trends are accurate, including the UK’s fall from 29% to 13% and Germany’s rise in China from 38% to 48%. You also cover both destinations and years. However, the overview is not fully precise: Germany did not have the highest share of exports to India in 2011, as Belgium remained higher at 20% versus Germany’s 25%—actually Germany was higher, but the overview should state this clearly. Some details are over-generalised: several countries were below 10%, but not all, and the India section omits useful changes such as Belgium’s decline and Germany’s rise in context. A more selective, exact overview would strengthen the response.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear four-part structure: introduction, overview, India details and China details. This makes the two destinations easy to follow, and transitions such as “Regarding China” signal the shift effectively. Comparisons are also generally grouped by destination rather than presented as an unstructured list. Some linking is less controlled, however. “Whereas” begins a fragment-like contrast after a full sentence, and “Finally” introduces a broad statement that does not clearly connect to the preceding figures. The repeated pattern of reporting one country and then its change can also feel list-like. To make progression more flexible, group the most important rises and falls together and use references such as “this share” only where the antecedent is unmistakable.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use relevant chart vocabulary, including “proportion,” “figure,” “accounted for,” and “decreased,” and the reader can understand the main comparisons. There is some attempt at less common phrasing, but several choices are inaccurate or unnatural for describing percentages: “exports at a rate,” “contributed too much to exports,” and “countries coined below 10%.” “Experienced high exports” is also vague, while “totall” and “slighty” show spelling errors. These issues make the language less precise and occasionally distract from the data, although the intended meaning is usually recoverable. Aim for standard collocations such as “accounted for a share of” and “the proportion rose/fell,” and check spelling before submitting.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt both simple and more complex sentence forms, including comparisons across years and clauses introduced by “while” and “that.” The overall meaning remains understandable, but some grammatical errors recur. For example, “Looking more closer” uses an incorrect comparative form, and “United Kingdom exports at a rate of 29% that was the highest figure” lacks a clear grammatical link between the clauses. In “this number was increased by 10%,” the passive construction is not appropriate for describing the change, and “9% of exports were occured” combines incompatible verb forms. Articles are also missing in “United Kingdom” and “in China” contexts where “the” is needed. Use direct active forms such as “Germany’s share increased,” and check clause boundaries and articles.

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.