Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 17 · 2026-10-19

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 5.5)

The chart illustrates how families in a country spent their weekly income between 1968 to 2018.

Overall, in 1968 families spent 35% of their income on food whereas, families spent less income on fuel and power which was 6%. In 2018, families spent 22% of their income on leisure in addition, families spend less amount on fuel and power which is around 4%.

To begin with, in 1968 families spent 35% of their weekly income on food and spent 10% of their income on housing and clothing footwear. Furthermore, families spent 9% on leisure and 8% of their income on personal goods, household goods and transport.

In the same way, in 2018 families spend significant part of their income on leisure which is 22% moreover, families spend 19% of income on housing and 17% on food which is decline to half. In 2018, families spend 14% on transport and 8% on household goods. Families spend less amount on fuel and power and personal goods which is 4%.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You identify the main contrast between the two years: food was the largest category in 1968, while leisure was the largest in 2018, and fuel and power was among the smallest in both. Most figures you report match the chart, including food at 35% and 17%, housing at 10% and 19%, and transport at 8% and 14%. However, the overview is incomplete because it does not clearly summarise the broad shift from food towards leisure, housing and transport. Some comparisons are also underdeveloped: for example, clothing falls from 10% to 5%, but this change is not discussed, and “decline to half” is imprecise. A clearer overview and more selective comparisons would make the key features easier to understand.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a recognisable structure, with an introduction, an overview and separate paragraphs for the two years. This gives the reader a basic route through the information. However, progression is sometimes mechanical: “To begin with” and “In the same way” do not clearly express the relationship between the data, and “In the same way” is especially unsuitable for introducing a year with different spending patterns. Several details are packed into long sentences using “Furthermore” and “moreover,” which makes the comparisons feel like a list. Grouping categories by increases, decreases and little change, and using clearer links between the years, would improve the flow and cohesion.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use relevant chart vocabulary such as “weekly income,” “spent,” “housing,” and “fuel and power,” so the topic remains clear. There is some variation in how you describe the figures, but the range is limited and several phrases are awkward or imprecise. For example, “spent less amount on fuel and power” is not a natural collocation, while “significant part” does not precisely describe the proportion. “Clothing footwear” also omits the conjunction, and “which is decline to half” is an inaccurate expression of the change. Aim for concise, accurate reporting verbs and comparison phrases, such as “accounted for,” “fell by half,” and “a smaller share.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt both simple statements and longer sentences with linking clauses, and the main figures are generally understandable. Some grammatical errors remain, particularly in tense, agreement and sentence construction. The introduction uses “between 1968 to 2018” rather than the correct paired form “between 1968 and 2018.” You shift between past and present forms—“spent” and “spend”—when describing the chart, and “families spent less income … whereas, families spent” has an awkward clause structure and punctuation. In “which is decline to half,” the verb form is also incorrect. Use the past tense consistently for the historical data and check that each comparison has a complete, correctly linked clause.

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.