Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-10-01

IELTS Writing Task 1 question

The table below shows the numbers of visitors to Ashdown Museum during the year before and the year after it was refurbished. The charts show the result of surveys asking visitors how satisfied they were with their visit, during the same two periods.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

Student answer (Band 5.5)

The given table elucidate the data of visitors to Ashdown Museum during the year before and the year after it was refurbished, also the pie chart illustrates the outcome of surveys questioning visitors how satisfied they were with their visit, during the same two periods.

The table gives information that, there were 74000 total number of visitors to ashdown museum during the year before refurbishment and during the year after refurbishment the total number of visitors to same museum were noted at 92000, which was 18000 higher than previous year.

In addition to, the pie graph shows the distribution of visitors satisfaction. there is major distribution of visitors who were very satisfied were marked at 15% a year before refurbishment which increased to 35% after the changes in the museum. there were similarity in no response distribution which is 5% for both. the proportion of satisfied visitors were at 30% a year before the construction followed by moderate rose to 40% after the construction. there were only 5% difference in very dissatisfied responses, which accounted to be lowered after refurbishment. there were 40% visitors who feel dissatisfied before refurbishment and after refurbishment the response were dropped to 15%.

Overall, it can be seen that the number satisfaction by visitors were marked higher after refurbishment, while it reveals notably declined distribution after the refurbishment of the museum.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

The response addresses the task partially, covering both the table and the pie charts, yet the selection of features and overall reporting lacks full development. While the writer successfully notes the visitor numbers before and after refurbishment (74,000 and 92,000) and outlines the survey outcomes, the reporting becomes mechanical and lacks a fully realised overview. The final summary paragraph is somewhat confused and contradictory, stating that satisfaction was 'marked higher' but also claiming a 'notably declined distribution', which fails to accurately synthesise the main trends. To reach a higher standard, the response would need to present a clearer, more coherent overview that avoids contradictory statements and integrates the data points more fluidly rather than listing percentages in a repetitive manner.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

There is a discernible pattern of organisation with attempts to separate the table data from the chart statistics into distinct paragraphs, but overall progression lacks clarity. Cohesive devices are used rather repetitively and sometimes inaccurately, such as 'In addition to,' which is left hanging without a complete prepositional phrase, and the frequent reliance on 'there were' to introduce new data points. Paragraphing is present, but the internal logical flow within paragraphs feels disjointed because sentences are mechanically strung together rather than smoothly connected. To improve Coherence and Cohesion, the writer should employ a wider and more accurate range of cohesive ties, ensure referencing is unambiguous, and structure the overview and body paragraphs so that information flows logically from general comparisons to specific survey details.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

The vocabulary used is limited but minimally adequate to convey the basic information required for the task. The writer attempts some less common lexical items, such as 'elucidate', 'refurbished', and 'distribution', but these are occasionally misused or awkwardly collocated, as seen in 'distribution of visitors who were very satisfied' or 'moderate rose'. There are also minor word form issues, such as 'visitors satisfaction' instead of 'visitor satisfaction' or 'number satisfaction'. While meaning is generally communicated, these noticeable errors and the restricted vocabulary range prevent the response from achieving a higher score. Incorporating more precise vocabulary for describing statistical changes and ensuring correct word forms would significantly strengthen this criterion.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

The grammatical range is limited, featuring a heavy reliance on simple sentence structures alongside attempts at complex forms that are frequently flawed. There are numerous grammatical errors throughout the text, including subject-verb agreement issues (e.g., 'there were 40% visitors who feel dissatisfied', where 'feel' should be past tense and 'visitors' plural agreement requires care), missing articles ('to ashdown museum'), and awkward clause constructions like 'which accounted to be lowered'. Punctuation is also weak, with run-on constructions and lack of proper capitalization for proper nouns ('ashdown'). These frequent errors create noticeable difficulty for the reader and reflect a lack of control over complex grammatical structures. A higher band would require a greater variety of error-free complex sentences and much tighter control over basic grammar and punctuation.

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.