Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-09-12
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 5.0)
The bar garphs depicts the proportions of british learners at an institute in England who were capable to communicate non-native languages in contribution to English in 2000 as well as 2010.
Overall, the figure of no other language students inclined in 2010 among other language. The same number of spanish and german said students
In 2000, the highest amount of students spoke no other languages, which was the one-third proportion. Meanwhile, Spanish accounted for one-fifth, making it the second most popular language. While, the same percentage of students talked French and another language, that was 15%, each. 10 % of university students said German. Two other language stood at 10%.
In 2010, no other languages consituted the biggest proportion as compared to the other languages. French speaking students declined in 2010, with one-fifth. Spanish and German represented the equal number of students, that was 10%,each, making it the least figure. Another language and two other languages had 15% and 20% students, respectively.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.5 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.0 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.0 |
| Overall | 5.0 |
Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.5
The student attempts to address the prompt by summarising the main features of the charts regarding British students speaking other languages in 2000 and 2010. Key data points such as the proportions for no other languages, Spanish, and French are reported. However, there are notable limitations. The overview is somewhat weak, poorly phrased ("figure of no other language students inclined in 2010 among other language"), and fails to clearly highlight the broader trends. Furthermore, some data details are slightly imprecise or awkward, such as "Two other language stood at 10%" and repetitive phrasing when contrasting the two years. Nevertheless, the main features are touched upon, earning a band 5.5.
Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.0
The response is structured into an introduction, an overview, and separate body paragraphs for each year (2000 and 2010). However, the progression is hindered by awkward phrasing, particularly in the brief overview paragraph which is grammatically tangled and difficult to follow. Cohesive devices are used, but their application is sometimes clumsy or repetitive (e.g., overuse of "Meanwhile" and transitional phrases without smooth integration). Paragraphing is attempted, but the separation of ideas does not always guarantee a smooth flow of information. Referencing and logical sequencing need more precision to achieve a higher band. Overall, the organization shows basic coherence but suffers from mechanical faults.
Lexical Resource — Band 5.0
The student demonstrates a limited but minimally adequate range of vocabulary suitable for discussing statistical data, using terms like "proportions", "accounted for", "represented", and "declined". However, there are numerous spelling and word-choice errors, such as "garphs" instead of graphs, "british" uncapitalised, "consituted" instead of constituted, and awkward collocations like "capable to communicate non-native languages in contribution to English". The repetition of simple descriptive phrases also restricts the score. These noticeable errors cause occasional confusion for the reader, aligning the response with band 5.0.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0
The writer attempts a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, including relative clauses and comparative forms (e.g., "which was the one-third proportion", "as compared to the other languages"). However, control over grammar is inconsistent. There are frequent grammatical errors, such as missing prepositions, incorrect word forms ("capable to communicate" instead of capable of communicating), and faulty subject-verb agreement or incomplete clauses ("The same number of spanish and german said students"). While meaning can generally be extracted, these frequent errors cause difficulty for the reader and prevent the text from reaching a higher band 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.