Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-09-01
IELTS Writing Task 1 question
The charts below show the proportions of British students at one university in England who were able to speak other languages in addition to English, in 2000 and 2010
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
Student answer (Band 5.5)
The pie graphs illustrate the percentage of the university students who were British and could speak languages like: French, Spanish, German, another language, two other languages other than English, particularly in 2000 and 2010.
Overall, it is evident that majority of students were able to speak more than one language. Spanish and another language hold weightage of pupils with the ability to speak language instead of only English.
In year 2000, the total number of individuals in a university were 70% altogether with the ability to speak English and more languages. Whereas Spanish hold the significant number of students who could speak language other than English which was 20%. Students with no other language exhibited the weightage of 30%.
In contrast, highest proportion of speaking another language scored 20% in year 2010 which was slightly higher than 2000. The emphasis of Spanish and French language dropped to 10% and 10% respectively. While two other languages experienced a minimalistic increase of 5% than 2000.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.5 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 6.0 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.5 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.5 |
| Overall | 5.5 |
Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.5
The response covers the main features of the charts, but the analysis is somewhat inconsistent. While you identify the key trends, the data interpretation is occasionally inaccurate. For instance, you state that 'Spanish and another language hold weightage of pupils', but the charts show specific categories like 'French' and 'two other languages'. Furthermore, the claim that 'total number of individuals... were 70%' is unclear and does not accurately reflect the data presented in the pie charts. To improve, ensure that all data points are clearly linked to their respective categories and years, and avoid vague terminology like 'weightage' or 'minimalistic increase' when describing specific statistical changes.
Coherence and Cohesion — Band 6.0
The essay is organised into paragraphs, which helps the reader follow the structure. However, the use of cohesive devices is sometimes mechanical or awkward. Phrases like 'exhibited the weightage of' and 'the emphasis of... dropped' do not flow naturally. The transition between the 2000 and 2010 data is attempted with 'In contrast', but the logical progression within the paragraphs is occasionally hindered by unclear referencing. For example, the sentence 'Spanish hold the significant number of students who could speak language other than English' lacks a clear connection to the previous sentence. Improving the variety of linking words would enhance the overall flow.
Lexical Resource — Band 5.5
The vocabulary is generally adequate for the task but lacks precision. You rely on repetitive and sometimes non-standard phrasing, such as 'hold weightage of' and 'minimalistic increase'. These terms are not standard in academic reporting. There is an attempt to use specific language related to the charts, but the word choice is often imprecise, which limits your ability to convey the data clearly. To reach a higher band, focus on using more accurate reporting verbs and nouns, such as 'accounted for', 'represented', 'a marginal rise', or 'a significant decline'.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.5
The response contains a mix of simple and complex sentence structures. However, there are frequent grammatical errors that occasionally distract the reader. Examples include 'total number of individuals in a university were 70%', where subject-verb agreement is incorrect, and 'Spanish hold the significant number', which should be 'held'. Additionally, there are issues with article usage and prepositional phrases, such as 'in year 2000' (should be 'in the year 2000'). While these errors do not completely impede communication, they occur frequently enough to prevent a higher score.
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.