Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Cambridge IELTS 17 · 2026-10-06

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 6.0)

The chart compares how familes in a particular country spend their per week income in year 1968 and 2018.

Overall, Families in 1968 spent majority of their money on food in contrast, leisure takes up most share of the income in 2018. Other noticable feature is spending of food, power, personal goods have gone down over the given period.

Food had the greatest precentage of money being spent in 1968 at 35 percent while in 2018 it was around 17 percent. Moreover, people were spending more then 5 percent on fuel in 1968, it was less then 5 percent in 2018. Futher more people in 1968 spend more on personal goods at around 9 percent compare to less then 5 percent in 2018. On the other hand, spending on house holds goods have remained same in 1968 and 2018 at around 8 percent.

In 2018, people spend way more on housing compaterd to 1968 at just under 20 percent from 10 percent in the past. Futhermore money spending on leisure has seen a dramtic rice from under 10 percent to just around 25 percent in 2018. With respect to cothing and footwear people are also spending less comapared to 1968 form 10 percent to 5 percent repectivly.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

The response identifies the main contrast accurately: food is the largest category in 1968, while leisure leads in 2018, and it notes several decreases and increases. The figures for food, housing, household goods, and clothing are broadly consistent with the chart. This gives the report a clear overview and relevant supporting comparisons. However, some details are imprecise: leisure rose to about 22%, not “around 25%,” and personal goods were about 8% in 1968 rather than 9%. Transport, which increased notably from 8% to 14%, is omitted, so the comparison of the main changes is not fully comprehensive. More precise reporting and inclusion of this important rise would strengthen an otherwise clear account.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction, an overview, and two paragraphs of supporting comparisons. Its progression from the main 1968 categories to changes in 2018 is generally easy to follow, and linking phrases such as “On the other hand” and “Furthermore” help connect points. This coherent arrangement is a strength. However, some connections are mechanical or unclear, particularly “Overall, Families in 1968…” and the long overview sentence that joins contrasting ideas without effective punctuation. The final paragraph also groups several separate comparisons together. Use clearer sentence boundaries and organise details into more deliberate groups, such as categories that rose and those that fell, to make cohesion more flexible and precise.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

The response uses relevant vocabulary for describing proportions and change, including “greatest percentage,” “remained same,” and “dramatic rise.” It also attempts a range of comparison language, so the meaning is usually recoverable. However, noticeable spelling errors—such as “familes,” “noticable,” “Futhermore,” “comapared,” and “repectivly”—reduce accuracy. Some word choices and collocations are also awkward, including “spend their per week income,” “takes up most share,” and “money spending.” These issues make the vocabulary less controlled and occasionally slow the reader. Check spelling carefully and favour standard chart-reporting phrases such as “weekly income,” “accounted for the largest share,” and “expenditure on leisure.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

The response attempts both simple and more complex sentences, including comparisons with “while” and “whereas”-type contrasts, and most ideas remain understandable. However, grammatical control is inconsistent. Examples include “families … spend their per week income,” “Families … spent majority,” and “people in 1968 spend,” where tense, articles, or sentence structure need correction. Agreement and number are also problematic in “spending … have gone down” and “house holds goods have remained same.” Punctuation is weak in the overview, where contrasting clauses run together. Practise accurate past-tense reporting, article use, and subject–verb agreement, and separate complete clauses with appropriate punctuation. More reliable control of these patterns would make the varied sentence attempts clearer.

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.