Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 13 · 2026-09-01

IELTS Writing Task 1 question

The two maps below show road access to a city hospital in 2007 and 2010.

Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons wherever relevant.

Student answer (Band 5.5)

The map below illustrate the city hospital road access in 2007 to 2010, whereas the development of the city hospital infrastrature .

First of all in 2007 the hospital is near to the ring road but there is no saperate parking facility avalible for the public or even for the hospital staff they all parked in the same spot . hospital is located near to the main road so there is a bus stop because of that there is quite a lot traffic which cause problem for the patients who are coming to the hospital .

In 2010 the city hospital upgraded the hospital's surroundings they build the saperate car parking facility for public on the very right side of the hospital linked with the ring road , very next to the public parking thier is a staff car parking avalible So the public and the hospital staff coming from ring road can easily parked thier vehicals then there is round about near to the bus station so that there is no traffic jam.

In comparisons in 2007 there is quite a lot issues ralayted to the pakiing and traffic which create problems to the coming petients but in 2010 these problems were solved and the stacture of the hospital is way better hen 2007 .

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.5

The response identifies the main features of the maps, such as the addition of parking facilities and the roundabout. However, the overview is weak; the opening sentence is grammatically incomplete and fails to clearly summarize the key changes. While the response covers the main developments, the description of the 2007 layout is slightly repetitive, and the analysis lacks a professional, objective tone. The comparison between the two years is present but could be more effectively integrated to highlight the transformation of the hospital's access routes. To improve, ensure the overview provides a concise summary of the most significant changes rather than just introducing the topic.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.5

The essay is organized into paragraphs, which helps the reader follow the progression from 2007 to 2010. However, the use of cohesive devices is limited and sometimes mechanical. Phrases like 'First of all' and 'In comparisons' are used, but the transitions between sentences within paragraphs are often abrupt. The referencing is occasionally unclear, and the lack of sophisticated linking words makes the flow feel somewhat disjointed. To reach a higher band, focus on using a wider variety of cohesive devices (e.g., 'consequently,' 'furthermore,' 'in contrast') to connect ideas more fluidly and improve the logical flow between sentences.

Lexical Resource — Band 5.0

The vocabulary is generally adequate for the task but lacks precision and variety. There are several spelling errors, such as 'infrastrature,' 'saperate,' 'avalible,' 'thier,' 'vehicals,' and 'pakiing.' These errors are frequent and occasionally distract the reader. The range of vocabulary is limited to basic descriptive terms, and there is little attempt to use more sophisticated or topic-specific terminology related to urban planning or infrastructure. To improve, focus on learning the correct spelling of common words and incorporating more precise vocabulary, such as 'designated,' 'integrated,' or 'congestion,' to describe the changes in the hospital's road access.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0

The response contains a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, but there are frequent grammatical errors that impede clarity. Issues include subject-verb agreement ('the map below illustrate'), tense inconsistency ('the hospital is near' vs 'they build'), and missing articles or incorrect word forms ('there is quite a lot traffic'). Punctuation is also inconsistent, with several run-on sentences and missing commas. While the meaning is generally understandable, the high frequency of errors in basic grammar and sentence construction prevents the response from reaching a higher band. Focusing on proofreading for basic subject-verb agreement and tense consistency would significantly improve the quality of the writing.

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.