Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · IELTS Momentum Workout · 2026-10-25

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 illustrate the exporting rates from different european countries to India and China during the year of 2000 and 2010.

Overall, both India and China import goods from many different countries of Europe. India imported their largest proportion of goods from United Kingdom during 2000, then Germany took over the highest exporting percentage to India during 2011. While China's highest imported percentage was Germany's during the both year.

During the year of 2000, India brought their most of the goods from the United Kingdom which was about 29% of total but then it decreased to 13% in the year of 2011.In 2000 Belgium and Germany was the second and third highest exporter of India with 25% and 15% respectively but during 2011 Belgium's proportion droped to 20% however Germany 's export rate jumped to 25% making them the top exporter of India throughout that year. Rest of the countries like- Australia, Finland, Italy,Netherlands,Spain,Sweden and others also faced some minor changes in their exporting rate.

China's importing goods was mainly dependent on Germany and was increased by 10% which made them 48% of the total export rate. France was second and also unchanged in their position like Germany, however their proportion dropped by 3% from before. The rest of the countries also had some minor ups and downs in their exporting rates.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You identify the main patterns: the UK led exports to India in 2000 before Germany became the largest exporter in 2011, while Germany dominated exports to China in both years. Several comparisons are supported with accurate figures, including the UK’s fall from 29% to 13% and Germany’s rise to 48% in China. However, some important details are missing or unclear. For China, Germany’s share rose from 38% to 48%, rather than simply being “increased by 10%,” and France’s share fell from 13% to 10%; calling France “unchanged in their position like Germany” is confusing because Germany’s share changed substantially. The overview could also compare the contrasting concentration of exports to the two destinations more clearly, and the final references to “minor” changes overlook notable shifts such as Finland’s fall in China.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction, an overview, and separate paragraphs for India and China. This makes the main destination-based comparisons easy to follow, and linking expressions such as “Overall,” “however,” and “While” help signal relationships. Some cohesion is less controlled, though. The sentence about France being “unchanged in their position like Germany” is difficult to interpret, and “the rest of the countries” is used to group together several figures without explaining their patterns. The India paragraph also moves from the leading exporters to a broad list of other countries rather abruptly. To improve progression, organise each destination paragraph around the largest changes first, then briefly summarise the smaller shares, using clearer references to the relevant year and country.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use a reasonable range of task-related vocabulary, including “proportion,” “exporter,” “decreased,” “dropped,” and “jumped,” which helps describe changes and rankings. Some word choices and collocations are inaccurate or imprecise: “exporting rates” and “imported percentage” do not describe the chart as naturally as “shares of EU exports,” while “China’s importing goods was mainly dependent on Germany” is awkward. “Minor changes” also understates some substantial movements. There are spelling and form issues, including “european,” “droped,” and “Australia” where the chart lists Austria. Aim for precise terms such as “share,” “accounted for,” and “rose/fell by,” and check country names carefully. These improvements would make the comparisons more accurate and natural.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mix of simple and complex sentences, including contrast clauses with “while” and “however,” and most of the intended meaning remains understandable. Some grammatical errors recur, particularly with articles, agreement, and sentence boundaries. For example, “during the both year” should be “in both years,” and “Belgium and Germany was” needs a plural verb (“were”). In “India brought their most of the goods,” the determiner and pronoun pattern is faulty; a clearer construction is “India received most of its goods from…” The sentence beginning “China’s importing goods was…” also has an awkward grammatical structure. Punctuation is inconsistent, with missing spaces after full stops and commas. Practise accurate comparative clauses and check agreement and punctuation when editing.

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.