Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Momentum Workout · 2026-10-26

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 illustrates the range of goods exported to India and China in year 2000 and 2011 from different EU countries.

First of all, we will compare the EU Exports of Goods to India in year 2000 and 2011. In year 2000, UK was the highest exporter of the goods and decreased from 29% to 13% in year 2011. In 2011, Germany became the highest exporter having 25% share in 2011 10% more than that it 2000 and Belgium containing 20%. France, Italy and Netherlands had share on 8%, 7% and 4% respectively in 2000 and went to 9%, 9% and 5% in year 2011. While Spain, Sweden and Finland contributed 2% each in year 2000 and increasing the export of 1% for Spain and Sweden but Finland stays same. Other EU Countries added a contribution of 5% in the exports in 2000 and 9% in 2011. Austria was the lowest exporter in year 2000 having value of 1% but in 2011 it came to 2% making export equal to Finland.

For China, Germany remains the highest exporter having 48% share in 2011 and 38% share in 2000. Second major exporter was France with 13% and 10% in 2000 and 2011. Italy and UK contributed 9% in year 2000 while Sweden made 8% of exports to China. Finland holded 6% and Belgium had 5% of the exports. Netherlands and other eu coutries contributed for 4% and Austria and Spain secured the lowest export with 2%.

In year 2011, Italy, Belgium,UK, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Finland contains the share of 8%, 7%, 5%, 5%, 3%, 3% and 2% for respectively. Other EU Countries contrinuted a decent share of 8% export to the China.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.0

You identify several important patterns, including the UK’s fall in India’s export share and Germany’s rise to the leading position in both markets by 2011. Many figures are accurate, such as Germany’s 25% share in India and its increase from 38% to 48% in China. However, the response is only partly effective as a summary because it has no clear overview of the main contrasts between the two destinations, and it devotes substantial space to listing individual countries. There is also a significant data error: for China in 2011, you report the UK at 5%, whereas the chart shows 7%. A concise overview highlighting Germany’s dominance in China and the UK’s decline in India would make the key features clearer.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response is divided into paragraphs for India and China, which gives the reader a basic structure, and the chronological comparisons are generally understandable. However, progression is weakened by the lack of a separate overview and by the long sequences of figures, especially the lists of smaller exporters. Linking phrases such as “First of all” and “For China” help signal topic changes, but “In year 2011” begins another list rather than developing a clear comparison with the earlier paragraph. Some connections are also awkward, as in “increasing the export of 1% for Spain and Sweden.” Grouping countries with similar trends and using clearer comparison links would make the organisation more coherent and less list-like.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use relevant vocabulary for describing charts, including “highest exporter,” “share,” “contributed,” and “lowest exporter,” so the topic remains clear. However, the range is limited and some expressions are repetitive or imprecise, such as repeated use of “share” and “exporter” and the phrase “a decent share.” Several word choices and forms are inaccurate, including “holded,” “contains the share,” and “contrinuted”; these reduce the precision and polish of the report. Aim for more natural chart language, such as “accounted for,” “rose to,” and “represented,” while checking spelling and choosing collocations carefully. This would allow you to describe changes more precisely without relying on repeated phrasing.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt both simple and longer sentences, and the reader can usually follow the comparisons. However, errors are frequent, and complex sentences are often not controlled successfully. For example, “The pie charts illustrates” has a subject–verb agreement error, while “in year 2000” and “in 2011 10% more than that it 2000” show problems with articles and sentence construction. The sentence beginning “While Spain, Sweden and Finland…” is also incomplete or awkwardly joined to its main idea. There are further agreement and tense problems in “countries … contains” and “Finland holded.” Practise accurate past-tense reporting and build comparisons in complete sentences, using clear subjects and verbs.

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.