Band 4.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 4.5 · Cambridge IELTS 17 · 2026-10-21

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 4.5)

This chart shows detailed report of weekly income in 1968 and in 2018.this report tells us about the percent of expenditure spent on food housing fuel and power clothing and footwear, household goods personal goods transport and leisure.after seeing this report it can be concluded that families spent most of thier income percent almost thirty percent on food.usually families more took interest in food in 1968 and onwards.after that families have spent most of thier income percent on housing and clothing it can be repairing of houses and painting and plastering of damageg walls.families also spent much of thier income expenditure on leisure means they also enjoy thier lives in parks and on beaches and by inviting friends for parties .there is a much less percentage of fuel and power.people in the past have no interst in travelling and of course there was no technological advancement and because of lack of technologies people scarcely used fuel and power for thier comfort.it can be cocluded that in the past people lack usage of transport and power facilities and they lived a much harder and tougher life than us in case of use of technologies.clothing and footwear were used in a balances way

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 4.5

The response identifies the chart’s general subject and mentions several categories, but it does not accurately summarise the main comparisons. It says families spent “almost thirty percent” on food, whereas the chart shows about 35% in 1968 and 17% in 2018; it also fails to distinguish the two years consistently. The claim that housing and clothing were both major spending areas is misleading: housing rose from 10% to 19%, while clothing fell from 10% to 5%. Much of the response adds unsupported explanations about house repairs, leisure activities, technology and people’s quality of life rather than reporting chart data. To improve, give a clear overview of the largest rises and falls, then compare the key figures for both years without speculation.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 4.0

There is a basic attempt to move from the chart’s subject to observations about spending, and linking phrases such as “after that” and “it can be concluded” show an effort to connect ideas. However, the response is presented as one long, largely unstructured paragraph, with no clear overview followed by organised comparisons. The sequence shifts between categories and unsupported explanations, so the reader cannot easily follow a comparison between 1968 and 2018. Repeated conclusions do not create progression, and references such as “in the past” are unclear about which year is meant. Use separate paragraphs for an overview and grouped details, and organise the figures by changes—for example, categories that rose versus those that fell.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

The response uses some relevant topic vocabulary, including “weekly income,” “percentage,” “fuel and power,” “household goods” and “transport,” so the subject is generally recognisable. However, the range is limited and several phrases are repetitive or imprecise, such as “income percent,” “spent much of their income expenditure” and “used in a balances way.” Some word choices also introduce unsupported meanings, including “repairing of houses” and “technological advancement,” rather than describing the chart. Spelling errors such as “thier,” “interst” and “cocluded” are noticeable. Aim for concise, accurate reporting language, such as “accounted for,” “rose to,” “fell to” and “remained unchanged,” and check spelling and collocations.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 4.5

The response attempts to combine ideas using longer sentences and conjunctions, but sentence structures are often faulty, and punctuation makes the text difficult to read. For example, “This chart shows detailed report” is missing an article, while “usually families more took interest” has an unclear word order and verb construction. The opening also runs several sentences together without spaces after full stops, and the final clause, “clothing and footwear were used in a balances way,” is grammatically awkward. Most sentences would benefit from being shorter and more controlled. Practise accurate simple comparisons first, such as “Food accounted for 35% in 1968, compared with 17% in 2018,” then add a limited number of correctly formed complex sentences.

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.