Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-10-19

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 5.5)

the line graph illustrates the average carbon dioxide emissions per person in four countries: United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden and Portugal from 1967 to 2007.

Overall, the data shows that the emissions of carbon dioxide per person from 1967 to 2007 in the United kingdom was significantly the highest than decreased throughout the period after reaching the peak at first, same for Sweden, the opposite pattern for Italy and Portugal where both of them rose sharply

with Portugal at the same metric tone as Sweden the lowest in the materic tonnes.

The UK showed a continous decline, dropped from the peak around 11 in the metric tonnes of emissions of carbon dioxide per person in 1967 to approximatly 9 in 2007 ,however even with the continous decline it was still the highest in the four countries. Then, Sweden fluctuated slightly throughout the period, begining with around 9 in 1967, climbed till over 10 in 1977 then fell consistelly till around 6 in 2007.

On the other hand, Italy and Portugal saw an notable increased, climbed from over 4 and less than 2 in 1967, to around 7 and 4 in 1987, to qpproximatly 8 and 6 in 2007.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

You cover the main trends and provide a clear overview: the UK remains the highest-emitting country while Italy and Portugal rise, and Sweden falls after an early peak. Most figures are broadly accurate, including the UK’s decline from about 11 to 9 and Sweden’s rise to just over 10 before dropping. The comparison that Portugal and Sweden finish at the same level is also supported. However, the overview is unclear when it says the UK was “significantly the highest than decreased,” and the final figures for Italy and Portugal are imprecise: Italy ends at about 7.6, while Portugal is about 5.4, not 6. The response selects relevant features, but clearer comparisons and more precise reporting would make the account more complete.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, an overview, and two paragraphs grouping the declining and rising trends. This gives the reader a generally coherent route through the information. Linking phrases such as “Overall” and “On the other hand” help signal the organisation. However, some connections are difficult to follow, particularly the overview’s long sentence joining the UK, Sweden, Italy and Portugal patterns. The final paragraph also compresses several years and figures into one sentence, making the comparisons less clear. Use shorter sentences and organise the data in a consistent sequence—for example, describe each country’s start, peak or turning point, and end value. This would improve progression and make references between trends easier to track.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use relevant topic vocabulary, including “emissions,” “decline,” “fluctuated,” and “rose,” and the reader can generally understand the trends you intend to describe. However, the range and control are limited by repeated or inaccurate expressions. Phrases such as “same metric tone,” “the lowest in the materic tonnes,” and “saw an notable increased” are unclear or unnatural, while “peak” is not the best description of the UK’s 1967 starting value because its emissions then decline. There are also noticeable spelling errors, including “continous,” “approximatly,” and “qpproximatly.” Choose precise trend language and check spelling carefully; accurate collocations will make the report sound more natural and reduce ambiguity.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt both simple and more complex sentences, and the overall meaning is usually recoverable. However, complex constructions are often faulty, as in “the emissions … was significantly the highest than decreased,” where the comparison and verb structure do not work. There are also errors in agreement and sentence construction, such as “Italy and Portugal saw an notable increased,” and the overview contains a long, loosely connected sentence that is difficult to parse. Punctuation is inconsistent, particularly around commas and spaces before “however.” Aim for shorter, complete sentences with a clear subject and verb, and check articles, agreement and tense patterns. For example, write that emissions “were highest in the UK and then declined,” rather than combining several patterns in one clause.

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.