Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 17 · 2026-09-01

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 5.0)

The graph shows the data about how families in one country use their weekly salary in 1968 and in 2018.

Overall, the income of food is much higher. Now the lowest average was personal good and fuel. The leisure was the middle average in weekly income.

The weekly averages of different things families can spend their money on two years. Food average is high 35 percent in 1968 and 2018 average is falled only 17 percent. While the housing percentage was 10 in 1968 and 19 in 2018. Fuel and power average was very low. In 1968 the percentage was 6 and 2018 its only 4. Now clothing and footware percentage of income was 10 in 1968 and 5 in 2018.

While the household goods percentage in weekly income was same only 8 in 1968 and 2018. The personal goods income percentgae 8 in 1968 and 4 in 2018. Transport percentage for weekly income 8 in 1968 and 14 in 2018. The lastone leisure 9 percentage in 1968 and 22 percent in 2018.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.5

The response covers the main features of the data, such as the significant decline in food spending and the rise in leisure and housing costs. However, the analysis is somewhat mechanical, relying heavily on listing figures rather than synthesizing trends. The overview is present but lacks clarity; for instance, stating 'the income of food is much higher' is imprecise. Some comparisons are made, but the report would benefit from grouping categories more effectively to highlight the overall shifts in spending priorities between 1968 and 2018. The response addresses the task requirements but lacks the analytical depth required for a higher band.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.0

The response is organized into paragraphs, but the progression of ideas is disjointed. The use of cohesive devices is limited and often repetitive (e.g., 'In 1968... in 2018'). Transitions between sentences are frequently missing or awkward, such as 'The lastone leisure 9 percentage in 1968 and 22 percent in 2018,' which lacks a proper verb and logical connection to the previous sentence. While the information is generally grouped by category, the lack of sophisticated linking words makes the text feel like a list of facts rather than a cohesive report.

Lexical Resource — Band 5.0

The vocabulary is basic and repetitive, often relying on the same structures to describe data (e.g., 'percentage was X'). There are several instances of word-choice errors, such as 'personal good' instead of 'personal goods' and 'falled' instead of 'fell'. The range of vocabulary is insufficient to demonstrate flexibility, and the student struggles to use precise terminology to describe trends, such as 'average is falled' instead of 'expenditure decreased'. To improve, the student should incorporate a wider variety of verbs and nouns related to data description.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0

The response contains frequent grammatical errors that occasionally impede clarity. There are issues with subject-verb agreement ('the income of food is much higher'), incorrect verb forms ('average is falled'), and missing articles or prepositions. Sentence structures are predominantly simple, with few attempts at complex sentences. Punctuation is generally functional, but the lack of control over basic sentence construction limits the score. The student needs to focus on consistent tense usage and ensuring that every sentence contains a clear subject and a correctly conjugated verb.

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.