Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Cambridge IELTS 17 · 2026-10-13

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 diagram represents the differences on the weekly income expenditure by families in a country, across 50 year period on 8 different items from 1968 to 2018.

Overall, it's evident that in the year 1968, the amount spent on buying food items were high compared to the other items, on the contrary, in the year 2018, income was spent more on leisure activity, while on household goods remain the same, around 8%.

In the year 1968, it's clear that about 35% of the income per week was spent on food items, making it the most expensive item and the amount spent on remaining items were at or below 10% contributing to 10% on housing and clothing and footwear, which makes it clear that other than food items most money was spend towards luxury. Expenditure on fuel and power, household goods, personal goods, transport and leisure marked between 7%-9%.

On the other hand, in the year 2018, everything changed. People started spending more money on leisure activities (22%) and food became the third most spent item (17%). Compared to 1968, housing market still remains on the high spent item, which actually increased to almost 18%, but at the same time clothing and footwear item decreased to 5%. Transportation increased (14%) and household remains the same and expenses on remaining items were minimal, below 5%.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

The response gives a clear overview of the main shift: food was the largest category in 1968, whereas leisure led in 2018, and household-goods spending stayed at about 8%. It also selects several useful comparisons, including the rise in housing and transport and the fall in clothing and footwear. Most figures are consistent with the chart, though the claim that housing “still remains on the high spent item” is imprecise, and saying the remaining 2018 expenses were “below 5%” overlooks household goods at 8% and fuel at about 4%. The description of 1968 spending on non-food items as mostly “luxury” is also an unsupported interpretation. More precise grouping and a complete account of the smaller categories would strengthen an otherwise well-focused summary.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 7.0

The information is organised effectively into an introduction, an overview, and separate paragraphs for each year. The progression from the broad contrast to supporting figures is easy to follow, and linking phrases such as “Overall” and “On the other hand” help signal the structure. Comparisons are also made across years, rather than presenting the figures as an unconnected list. Some connections are less clear: “which makes it clear that other than food items most money was spend towards luxury” does not follow logically from the figures, and “while on household goods remain the same” is awkwardly joined. Use more precise referencing and transitions to show exactly which categories are being compared; this would make the progression smoother and less dependent on formulaic signposting.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

The response uses an adequate range of topic vocabulary, including “expenditure,” “contributing,” “increased,” and “decreased,” and the reader can understand the main comparisons. It also attempts more formal phrasing, but some choices are inaccurate or unnatural: “differences on the weekly income expenditure,” “most expensive item,” and “high spent item” do not describe proportions of income appropriately. “Luxury” adds an unsupported meaning, while “everything changed” is too broad for an academic summary. Spelling and word-form control also need attention, as in “footware” and “Transportation” where the chart label is “Transport.” Prefer precise terms such as “share of weekly income” and “accounted for” to improve accuracy and academic tone.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

There is an attempt to use a mix of simple and complex sentences, including clauses introduced by “while,” “which,” and “compared to.” However, some grammatical errors recur and occasionally make relationships between ideas unclear. For example, “the amount spent … were high” has a subject–verb agreement problem, and “while on household goods remain the same” is not a complete, correctly formed clause. The sentence beginning “Expenditure on fuel and power…” also lacks a clear verb. Tense and sentence construction are inconsistent in phrases such as “housing market still remains” and “which actually increased.” Check agreement, ensure each clause has a clear subject and verb, and use past tense consistently when reporting the two years. These corrections would improve control while retaining the range of structures attempted.

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.