Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Cambridge IELTS 17 · 2026-10-25

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 bar chart compares how the people were spent their weekly earnings in a specific country in 1968 and 2018.

Overall, it is evident that the highest amount of weekly income was used for the food in 1968, while the lowest amount was spent on fuel and power.

In 1968, the food was accounted by 35%, whereas, housing was stood at 10%. However, in 2018, the major portion of weekly income utilized by housing which was 19% and 17% for the food. Additionally, the fuel and power were on the lowest side in both year .

Moreover, people spend 10% of amount for the clothing and footwear in 1968, which was later decreased by 5%. Furthermore, same percentage of income were consumed by transport, household and personal goods in 1968, while in 2018 people transport expense was increased at 14% and personal good was decreased at 4%. In end, Leisure category used 9% of total expense in 1968, which was increased more than twice in 2018, at 22%.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

You identify the main shift from food being the largest category in 1968 (35%) to leisure and housing taking larger shares in 2018 (22% and 19%), and you include relevant comparisons across the two years. The overview also notes that fuel and power was the smallest category in both years, which is accurate. This gives the response a clear account of the chart’s principal features. Some details are less fully reported: for example, household goods remained at 8%, while fuel and power fell from 6% to 4%, but neither change is stated. The phrase “same percentage” for transport, household and personal goods in 1968 is also imprecise, since these were each 8%, and the overview could better highlight the broad movement away from food towards leisure, housing and transport.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, an overview, and two paragraphs of comparisons. Information generally moves from the main categories to smaller spending areas, and linking expressions such as “Moreover” and “Furthermore” help signal additions. However, some connections are mechanical or unclear. “In 1968 … whereas, housing was stood at 10%” combines contrast and punctuation awkwardly, while “In end” does not form a natural transition. The final paragraph also groups several categories into a long sentence, making the comparisons harder to follow. Use clearer grouping—for example, compare the categories that rose, those that fell, and those that stayed stable—and make each sentence’s reference explicit.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

You use a reasonable range of task-related vocabulary, including “weekly income,” “major portion,” “decreased,” and “increased,” so the chart’s trends are usually understandable. There are also attempts to vary wording rather than repeat “spent.” However, several collocations and word forms are inaccurate or unnatural: “how the people were spent their weekly earnings,” “the food was accounted by,” and “people transport expense” do not express the intended meanings naturally. “In end” is also an unsuitable phrase, and “personal good” should be plural in this context. These choices sometimes make the description less precise, even though the reader can generally recover the meaning. Aim for standard chart language such as “accounted for,” “spending on transport,” and “the share allocated to food.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt both simple and more complex sentence forms, including comparisons with “while” and relative clauses such as “which was later decreased by 5%.” The main information remains understandable, but some grammatical errors recur. For example, “how the people were spent” has an incorrect passive construction, “housing was stood at 10%” uses the wrong verb form, and “the fuel and power were on the lowest side in both year” has agreement and number problems. Articles and sentence punctuation are also inconsistent, as in “the food” and the comma before “whereas.” These errors do not usually prevent comprehension, but they limit accuracy. Practise reliable patterns such as “spending on X stood at…,” “X accounted for…,” and “the figure for X rose/fell,” checking tense and singular/plural agreement.

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.