Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-10-13

IELTS Writing Task 1 question

The graph below shows average carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions per person in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy and Portugal between 1967 and 2007.

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

Student answer (Band 5.0)

The given pie chart elucidates information about the average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per person in the United kingdom, Sweden, Italy and Portugal between 1967 and 2007. The chart compares the different categories and presents in the percentages for proper illustration.

Overall, it is evident that there are noticeable differences the among the categories shown in the chart. Futhermore, for 1996, United kingdom, appared to the highest, while Portugal is the lowest. In addition, all categories showed mixed results with some fluctuations with stability, increment as well as decrement.

Talking about Portugal, its values were quite interesting like just below 2% for 1996, just above 2% for 1977, above 2% for 1987, above 4% for 1997 and above 4% for 2007. For some more understanding headingtoward Italy, and it had values like just above 4% for 1967, just below 6% for 1977, above 6% for 1987, just below 8% for 1997 and just below 8% for 2007.

Pouring some light on Sweden, and its share was above 8% for 1967, just above 10% for 1977, above 6% for 1987, 6% for 1997 and just below 6% for 2007. Let's have a look United kingdom, and it get above 10% for 1967, above 10% for 1977, 10% for 1987, 10% for 1997 and just below 10% for 2007.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 4.5

The response identifies the countries and period, and it attempts to report figures for all four lines. However, it does not accurately summarise the main features: the overview says the figures show “mixed results,” without clearly stating that the UK remained highest while Portugal rose markedly and Sweden declined after its peak. There is also a date error (“for 1996”) and several descriptions misrepresent the data. For example, Portugal was about 1.2 tonnes in 1967, not “just below 2% for 1996,” and the UK fell to about 8.7 tonnes by 2007 rather than remaining near 10. The repeated use of percentages is also incorrect because the graph reports metric tonnes. Select the key trends and compare them accurately.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.0

The response has a basic paragraph structure: an introduction, an overview, and separate sections discussing the countries. This gives the reader some organisation, and the country-by-country approach is understandable. However, there is little overall progression from the main trends to supporting comparisons, and the overview does not guide the later details. Linking phrases such as “Talking about,” “Pouring some light on,” and “Let’s have a look” are repetitive or awkward, making cohesion feel mechanical rather than natural. Some sentences also contain unclear connections, as in “all categories showed mixed results with some fluctuations with stability.” Grouping countries by trend—for example, declining emissions versus rising emissions—would create a clearer line of development.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

The writer attempts a range of vocabulary, including “noticeable differences,” “fluctuations,” and “increment as well as decrement.” However, much of the wording is repetitive, imprecise, or unsuitable for describing a line graph. “Pie chart,” “categories,” “share,” and “percentages” do not accurately describe this graph’s data, while “proper illustration” adds little meaning. Several expressions, such as “Pouring some light on” and “values were quite interesting like,” sound unnatural in an academic report. Spelling and word-form errors, including “Futhermore,” “appared,” and “United kingdom,” also reduce control. Use precise terms such as emissions, figures, rose, fell, peaked, and remained stable, and state values in tonnes.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

The response includes some simple sentences and attempts longer structures, but the range is limited and complex constructions are often faulty. For example, “there are noticeable differences the among the categories” has an incorrect word order, and “For some more understanding headingtoward Italy, and it had values” is not a complete, well-formed sentence. There are also problems with articles and sentence construction in “Let’s have a look United kingdom,” and the overview’s “Portugal is the lowest” does not use a suitable grammatical form for comparing emissions. Tense and agreement are not consistently controlled, as in “it get above 10%.” Build clear sentences with a subject and verb, and use past-tense forms consistently when reporting the historical data.

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.