Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-10-26

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 depicts information about the excrition of green house gas in different countries. There are four countries are included in this survey, they are UK, Sweden, Italy and Portugal, from the time period of 1967 to 2007. The data is showing through numbers.

Overall, among four coutry two country has seen the upward trend of cabon dioxaide emission, which are Portugal and Italy. Their emission wasw very low in 1967 but day by day it increased of about nearly 6 in Portugal and nearly 8 Italy. The other two coutries green house gas emission was high from the very begining of the survey, though in Sweden people has seen the dowwar trend but in UK emission rate change was very slight.

In 1967,in UK the carbon emission was already very high whichn was more than 10. But in upcoming days it's rate fall slightly. As a result ,in 2007 its rate was lower than 9. In Sweden , people were producing less carbon dioxidide than US in 1967, still in 1977 emissin surged dramatically. Though 1987 rate plummeted from more than 10 to less than 8, in 2007 the rate rate was decreased cosiderably , which was less than 6.

For Portugal and Italy the emission rate was low from the very starting of the survey, but it increased day by day. Which in dicate that the contruction of diffrent factory and tree burning is increasing. Still its going through a flictuating rate.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You identify the main overall contrast: emissions rose in Italy and Portugal, while the UK and Sweden declined over the period. You also include relevant comparisons and approximate figures, such as the UK remaining above 10 initially and ending below 9, and Sweden rising before falling. However, some key details are incomplete or inaccurate: Italy’s emissions levelled off at about 7.6 in the final decade, rather than continuing to rise, and Portugal’s increase is not described with clear endpoint figures. The claim that emissions fluctuated is not supported for Italy or Portugal, and the explanation about factories and tree burning is speculative and outside the graph. A more precise overview and fuller reporting of the two rising series would make the response more complete.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a recognisable structure, moving from an introduction and overview to country-specific details, and the UK/Sweden paragraph groups related information effectively. However, progression is uneven: the final paragraph combines Italy and Portugal without giving their separate patterns or clear comparisons, and it ends with an unsupported explanation. Some linking is mechanical or unclear, particularly “Still” and “Which in dicate,” while repeated references to “the rate” make it harder to follow which country is being discussed. Use one paragraph for the overview and organise the details into clear comparisons, with explicit country references and transitions that show contrast or change over time.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You attempt a range of task-related vocabulary, including “upward trend,” “surged dramatically,” “plummeted,” and “emission rate,” which helps communicate the broad patterns. However, spelling and word-choice errors are frequent enough to distract, including “excrition,” “cabon dioxaide,” “begining,” and “flictuating.” Some expressions are also unnatural or imprecise: “the data is showing through numbers” adds little, and “green house gas” is less accurate here than “carbon dioxide emissions.” The phrase “day by day” does not suit data reported at ten-year intervals. Aim for accurate, consistent terms such as “emissions,” “rose,” “fell,” and “remained stable,” and check spelling carefully.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt both simple and more complex sentences, including clauses introduced by “though” and “which,” but control is inconsistent. Errors in sentence structure and agreement appear in examples such as “There are four countries are included” and “two country has seen”; these should be “There are four countries included” and “two countries have seen.” Other problems include “in Sweden people has seen” and the fragment “Which in dicate that…”. Punctuation is also unreliable, with missing spaces after commas and awkward comma placement. These errors sometimes make relationships between ideas difficult to follow. Practise building accurate sentences around one main clause, then add subordinate clauses only when their grammatical connection is clear.

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.