Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 13 · 2026-09-16
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 5.0)
The two maps gives the information about the road city hospital in tear 2007 and 2010
Overall, In year 2007 the road was not to develop it only had a mutual car park for staff and public. However, in year 2010 the road was developed it had a seperate car park for staff as well as for public .
In year 2007 city hospital had a inside car park for staff and public also the bus stand was to far from hospital. Nevertheless city road had a four directional road and it could lead to many accidents . If we look at 2010 map the city hospital had the separate car park inside for staff and outside for public also bus stand was near to city hospital which was the good thing . However there was a roundabout structure designed for city road which decreased the highest chances of accidents .
In final the city hospital became more developed in year 2010 then year 2007.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.0 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.0 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.0 |
| Overall | 5.0 |
Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.0
The candidate attempts to summarise the main features of the two maps, noting the changes in car parks, roundabouts, and the bus station between 2007 and 2010. However, the response contains several inaccuracies and imprecise descriptions, such as stating the road 'was not to develop' and referring to the bus stop as 'too far from hospital' instead of reporting the structural rearrangements shown on the visual data. The overview is very basic and informal ('the road became more developed'). While some key changes are mentioned, the development of ideas is limited, and the tone is conversational rather than academic. This places the response in Band 5.
Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.0
The text is divided into four short paragraphs, representing an introduction, an overview, body details, and a conclusion. However, the logical progression is hindered by repetitive phrasing and poor transitional links, such as 'If we look at 2010 map' and conversational commentary like 'which was the good thing'. Cohesive devices are used mechanically or inadequately (e.g., 'However', 'In final'), and referencing is sometimes unclear or awkward. Paragraphing structure is attempted, but overall cohesion is faulty. This aligns with Band 5 descriptors.
Lexical Resource — Band 5.0
The vocabulary used is very basic and repetitive, with noticeable errors in word choice and morphology (e.g., 'tear' instead of 'year', 'seperate', 'mutual' car park instead of 'combined' or 'shared'). The candidate attempts some less common items like 'developed' and 'roundabout structure', but misuse of vocabulary and awkward collocations (e.g., 'road was not to develop') restrict communication and cause difficulty for the reader. The lexical range is limited and minimally adequate for the task, fitting Band 5.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0
The writing relies heavily on simple sentences and basic structures, with frequent grammatical errors. Examples include subject-verb agreement issues ('The two maps gives'), tense inconsistencies, missing prepositions, and run-on sentences with poor punctuation (e.g., '...staff as well as for public .In year 2007...'). Attempts at complex sentences are frequently faulty, leading to frequent errors that impede clarity. Control of grammar and punctuation is weak, corresponding to Band 4.5 or 5.0; given some successful simple clauses, a 5.0 is appropriate.
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.