Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 17 · 2026-11-03

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 bar chart illustrates the average weekly income spending of a country in 1968 and in 2018.

Overall, there is variation in both the years of how much percent does a family spend on an average of their weekly income. However, the average weekly spending is same for household goods in both the years.

In 1968, around 35% of weekly income was spend on food. Where as approximately 16% of weekly income was spend on food in year 2018. But a reverse nature can be seen in weekly income spending of leisure, around 22% income was spend on it in year 2018 and in year 1968 around 9% of a weekly average income was spend on it.

For household goods, personal goods and transport around 8% of weekly income was spend in 1968. But a variation can be seen in year 2018, around 8% was spend on household goods, 4% on personal goods and 14% on transport.

A similar pattern can be observed for clothing and footware, housing. 10% of weekly income was spend on these two things. Where as in 2018 around 19% of income was spend on housing and 5% of weekly income was spend on clothing and footware.

The fuel and power is at the lowest in terms of weekly income spenditure, around 7% is spend in 1968 and around 4% in 2018.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You identify several important comparisons, including the sharp fall in food spending, the rise in leisure and housing, and the unchanged share for household goods. Most figures are close to the chart; for example, food is reported as about 35% in 1968 and 16% in 2018, and leisure as 9% and 22%. The overview, however, is quite general: saying there is “variation” does not clearly summarise the main shift from food towards leisure, housing and transport. Some details are also less fully handled: transport’s increase is mentioned, but not highlighted as a major change, and the final claim that fuel and power is “at the lowest” is not accurate for 1968, when personal goods and transport are also around 8%, close to fuel’s 6%. A sharper overview and more precise comparisons would strengthen the report.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction and overview are followed by paragraphs comparing food and leisure, several goods categories, and finally fuel and power. This makes the information broadly understandable. However, progression is sometimes mechanical, with repeated “But” and “Where as” constructions, and the grouping of categories is not always clear. For instance, “A similar pattern can be observed for clothing and footware, housing” is followed by a contrast between the two years rather than a clearly stated pattern. The overview also repeats the idea of variation without guiding the reader towards the main trends. Use clearer topic sentences and link comparisons directly—for example, group categories that rose together and those that fell—to create a more consistent progression.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use relevant chart vocabulary such as “weekly income,” “around,” “approximately,” “variation,” and “reverse nature,” and the meaning is generally clear. However, several expressions are awkward or imprecise for describing data. “Average weekly income spending” is less natural than “average weekly expenditure,” while “reverse nature” does not clearly express an opposite trend. “Spenditure” is an incorrect form, and “footware” is misspelled; the chart label is “footwear.” Repetition of “weekly income was spend” also limits the range and makes the report less fluent. Aim for accurate collocations such as “accounted for,” “the proportion spent on,” and “rose/fell,” while varying the wording without sacrificing precision.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt both simple and more complex sentences, including contrasts with “whereas” and clauses introduced by “However.” The main comparisons remain understandable, but some grammatical errors recur. For example, “was spend” should be “was spent,” and “how much percent does a family spend” has an awkward question structure within a statement. In “the average weekly spending is same,” the article is missing, and “in both the years” is not the natural form. Sentence boundaries and punctuation also need attention: “In 1968, around 35% … was spend on food. Where as…” leaves the second part as a fragment. Check verb forms, articles and clause construction, and combine contrasts into complete sentences to improve accuracy and control.

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.