Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · Cambridge IELTS 17 · 2026-11-01

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 the comparisons of weekly income expenditure by families in one country, in the year 1968 and 2018.

Overall, food was the main reason of expenditure in the year 1968, while in 2018 leisure is the top on the list. Hosue hold goods shared equal percentages in both years.

In 1968, food was the main item where people spent about 35% of their weekly income. Followed by housing and clothing and footware, where each consumed about 10% of the income. The least amount were spent on fuel and power. The money spent on house hold goods, personal goods, and transport 8 perecent each. While, 9% of the average weekly income was spent on leisure.

In 2018, leisure was the favourite activity of the families. They spent around 22% of the commulated weekly income on leisure. About 19% of the revenue went to housing. They spent approximately 17 % on food. Transport, household and clothing and footware ate about 14%, 8%, and 5% of total weekly income, respectively. The lowest amount of income was spent on fuel and power.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

The response identifies the main shift clearly: food is the largest category in 1968, while leisure leads in 2018, and it notes that household-goods spending is unchanged. It also reports most figures accurately, including food at about 35% and 17%, and leisure at 9% and 22%. This gives the overview a sound basis and addresses the task. To make the summary more fully developed, compare the scale of the changes explicitly: food fell substantially, while housing and transport rose, and fuel and power, clothing, and personal goods declined. The final paragraph also omits the 2018 personal-goods figure, so the coverage is not quite as complete as it could be. These additions would make the selection and comparison of key features more consistently thorough.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 7.0

The organisation is clear and effective: an introduction is followed by an overview and then separate paragraphs for 1968 and 2018. This creates a logical progression, and the reader can readily follow the figures. Linking expressions such as “Overall,” “In 1968,” and “In 2018” help signal the structure. Some connections within sentences are less smooth, however. “Followed by housing and clothing…” is a fragment, and “While, 9%...” is an awkwardly attached clause. The lists of figures are understandable but could be integrated more consistently into complete sentences. Use transitions that show comparison between years, rather than relying mainly on year-by-year sequencing, to make the progression more flexible and cohesive.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

There is an adequate range of vocabulary for describing the chart, including “main item,” “approximately,” “revenue,” and “respectively.” The response also uses relevant category labels and communicates the general trends. However, several choices are inaccurate or unnatural for this task: “main reason of expenditure,” “favourite activity,” and “ate” do not describe spending precisely. “Commulated weekly income” is also an unsuitable phrase, while “house hold” and “perecent” show spelling or word-form problems. Prefer neutral, precise language such as “largest share of expenditure,” “accounted for,” and “weekly income.” More consistent use of accurate collocations would improve precision and formality without requiring unnecessarily complex vocabulary.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

The response attempts both simple and more complex sentence forms, and most of the information remains understandable. There are some grammatical errors, particularly in sentence construction and agreement. “Followed by housing and clothing…” is a sentence fragment, while “The least amount were spent” has a subject–verb agreement problem. The sentence beginning “The money spent on house hold goods…” is also missing a finite verb, and “While, 9%...” is not correctly joined to the preceding sentence. These errors limit the range and control shown, even though they rarely prevent the reader from understanding the data. Build complete sentences around each comparison and check agreement and clause connections; for example, “The least was spent on fuel and power” is a complete construction.

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.