Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Cambridge IELTS 17 · 2026-10-12

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 6.5)

The bar graph compares the percentages of weekly income spent by families in a country in different categories in 1968 and in 2018.

Overall, families spent most of their weekly income for food in 1968, while in 2018, they spent most of thier income for leisure. Additionally, there was no significant change for spending on household goods and remained the same in both the years. Additionally, there were significant changes in spending for food and leisure categories.

The trends for food, clothing and footware, and personal goods were similar, where the amount was spent in a higher proportion in 1968 than that in 2018. The families spent 35% of thier weekly income for the food and also spent 10% of the weekly income for their housing in 1968. However, housing accounted for 19% of their weekly income in 2018. The percentage for clothing and footware marked as equal as housing in 1968, while the spending decreased to 5% in 2018.

The spending for household goods accounted for about 8% of the weekly income. the proportion of spending for personal goods was lowered in 2018 by around 13%. The percentage spending for transport in 1968 was around 6% which was then increased to 14% in 2018. In 1968, the proportion of leisure accounted for around 8% , while in 2018, it stood just below a quarter( 22%), indicating a major rise.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

The response identifies the main contrast accurately: food was the largest category in 1968, while leisure led in 2018, and household-goods spending stayed at about 8%. It also reports several relevant figures and comparisons, including food, housing and clothing. However, some data are misreported: transport was about 8% in 1968, not 6%, and personal-goods spending fell from about 8% to 4%, rather than being “lowered ... by around 13%.” The overview is clear, but it could cover more of the major shifts, especially the rise in housing and transport and the fall in fuel and power. More precise reporting of these changes would make the summary more complete and consistently supported.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a clear overall structure, moving from an introduction and overview to grouped comparisons, so the reader can follow the main points. Paragraphing is appropriate, and linking words such as “Overall,” “However” and “while” help signal contrast. Cohesion is less controlled in places: “Additionally” is repeated in the overview, and the grouping of food, clothing and personal goods is not fully developed before the discussion shifts to housing. The final paragraph also moves between household, personal goods, transport and leisure without a particularly clear organising principle. Grouping categories by rising and falling expenditure, and using more precise references between sentences, would create smoother progression.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

The vocabulary is adequate for describing the chart, with useful terms such as “accounted for,” “proportion,” “percentage” and “major rise.” The writer also attempts varied phrasing rather than relying only on “spent.” However, some word choices and collocations are inaccurate or awkward, including “spent ... for food,” “marked as equal as housing,” and “the proportion ... was lowered.” “Thier” is misspelled more than once, and “footware” is also misspelled; these errors are noticeable even though the meaning remains clear. Aim for natural chart language such as “spending on,” “was equal to,” and “fell,” and check spelling carefully to improve precision and control.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6.0

There is a mix of simple and more complex sentence forms, including comparisons with “while” and “where,” and most ideas remain understandable. Some grammatical errors occur in sentence construction and punctuation. For example, “there was no significant change for spending on household goods and remained the same” has an unclear subject in the second clause; write “spending on household goods did not change.” In “The families spent 35% ... for the food and also spent 10% ... for their housing,” the article and preposition patterns are not well controlled. The lowercase “the” after a full stop and the spacing in “quarter( 22%)” also need attention. More consistent clause structure and proofreading would improve accuracy.

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.