Band 4.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 4.0 · Cambridge IELTS 17 · 2026-08-06

IELTS Writing Task 1 question

The chart below gives information about how families in one country spent their weekly income in 1968 and in 2018.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

1968 and 2018: average weekly spending by families

Student answer (Band 4.0)

In this topic we are going to discuss about the weekly income of families and on what things they spend it. Given chart gives the view of year from 1968 to 2018.

As we can see that in 1968 most of the families used to spend their income on food because back in time people had no interest in luxuries, economy was stable and people used to walk to there destinations rather then spending on transports. People used to save their incomes for future rather then spending them on other things.

We can notice in 2018 families started spending on their luxuries like nice houses, leisures, and better transports in this time people have different views they have changes their ways of spending like they prefer spending on the items which will provide them comfort rather then spending on food resources and saving their income for future.

In today date families have a completely different mindset they prefer spending on luxuries, comfort, and making their lifestyle more lavish.

AI examiner evaluation

CriterionBand
Task Achievement / Task Response3.0
Coherence and Cohesion4.0
Lexical Resource4.0
Grammatical Range and Accuracy4.0
Overall4.0

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 3.0

The response fails to meet the requirements of an Academic Task 1 report. Instead of objectively reporting data from the chart, the response provides subjective commentary and personal opinions, such as claiming people had 'no interest in luxuries' or 'people used to walk to their destinations.' The task requires a factual summary of the trends and comparisons between 1968 and 2018. No specific figures or percentages from the chart are mentioned, which is essential for this task. Consequently, the response does not address the core requirement of reporting main features and making comparisons based on the provided data.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 4.0

The essay is organised into paragraphs, which provides a basic structure. However, the progression of ideas is illogical because it focuses on personal interpretation rather than data analysis. Cohesive devices are very limited and often used incorrectly, such as 'In this topic we are going to discuss' and 'In today date,' which sound unnatural. The referencing is also weak, as the text fails to link the observations to the specific categories shown in the chart. The overall flow is hindered by the lack of objective reporting.

Lexical Resource — Band 4.0

The vocabulary is basic and repetitive. Phrases like 'nice houses,' 'leisures,' and 'lavish' are used in a way that does not accurately describe the data categories. There are several errors in word choice and collocation, such as 'In today date' instead of 'Nowadays' or 'In the present day,' and 'food resources' which is not the standard term for the 'food' category in the chart. The range of vocabulary is insufficient to convey the information with the precision required for an academic report.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 4.0

The response contains a mix of simple and some attempted complex sentences, but there are frequent grammatical errors. Examples include 'discuss about' (unnecessary preposition), 'back in time' (informal/incorrect phrasing), 'there destinations' (spelling error: 'their'), and 'rather then' (incorrect usage of 'then' instead of 'than'). Punctuation is also inconsistent. While the meaning is generally understandable, the high frequency of errors in basic sentence construction and word usage limits the score.

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.