Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Cambridge IELTS 17 · 2026-10-31

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 chart illustrates how families in a particular country spent their weekly income on different catagories of expenditure in 1968 and 2018.

Overall, nowdays spending money on food, clothing and footware, fuel and power, and personal goods decreased. In contrast, spending expenditure on housing, Transport and leisure increased. Meanwhile, spending on household goods remained unchanged in both years.

In 1968, food accounted for 35% of weekly expenditure, making it the largest category. However this figure fell to about 17% in 2018. On the other hand, spending on housing increased from 10% to around 19%. Moreover, leisure was about 8% in 1968 and figure increased significantly 23% in 2018. Transport expenditure was increased from 8% to approximately 14%.

Regarding remaining the items, fuel and power and personal goods recorded the lowest percentages which were lower than 10% in 1968 and below 5% 2018. In addition, spending on clothing and footware shows around 10% in 1968 and whereas 5% in 2018. furthermore, spending on household goods remained approximately 8% and unchanged in both years.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.5

The response gives a clear overview of the main shifts: food spending fell, housing and leisure rose, and household goods stayed stable. It also selects relevant figures, including food at 35% and 17%, housing at 10% and 19%, and transport at 8% and 14%. This provides a well-supported account of the chart’s key features. Some details are less precise: leisure is shown as about 8% in 1968 and 23% in 2018, whereas the chart indicates approximately 9% and 22%; these are small differences, but closer reading would improve accuracy. The statement that fuel and personal goods were the lowest categories is broadly grounded, though clothing also falls below 5% in 2018. More precise comparisons across the smaller categories would strengthen the report further.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 7.0

The response is organised into a clear introduction, overview, and two detail paragraphs. Its progression from the largest categories to the remaining items is easy to follow, and linking expressions such as “In contrast,” “Moreover,” and “Regarding” help signal relationships. The overview also gives the reader a useful map of the main trends before the figures are discussed. Some connections are less smooth or slightly repetitive: “On the other hand” and “Moreover” introduce individual comparisons without always clarifying their relationship, while “In addition” and “furthermore” are used close together in the final paragraph. A more deliberate grouping—for example, rising categories together and falling categories together—would make the comparisons more cohesive and the paragraphing more purposeful.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

There is adequate vocabulary for describing the chart, including “accounted for,” “recorded,” “increased significantly,” and “remained unchanged.” The writer also uses relevant terms such as “weekly expenditure” and “percentages,” so the meaning is generally clear. However, some word choices and collocations are inaccurate or awkward: “spending expenditure” is redundant, “spending money on” is less suitable for a formal chart report, and “Transport expenditure was increased” is not a natural expression. Spelling errors in “catagories,” “nowdays,” and “footware” also reduce accuracy. Aim for precise, consistent terms such as “the proportion of weekly income spent on” and check spelling carefully; this would make the vocabulary more controlled and appropriately academic.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

The response attempts a mix of simple and more complex sentences, including contrast structures such as “In contrast” and “Meanwhile,” and most of the data remains understandable. However, some grammatical errors recur and limit control. For example, “Transport expenditure was increased” uses an incorrect passive form; write “Transport expenditure increased.” In “the figure increased significantly 23%,” a preposition is missing (“to 23%”), and “spending on clothing … shows around 10% … and whereas 5%” has an unclear, incomplete structure. The overview also shifts awkwardly between “nowdays” and past-tense reporting. Practise accurate past-tense comparisons and complete clauses, while retaining the useful variety of sentence patterns already 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.