Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-09-15
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 two pie charts illustrates the proportion of British students at university in England who were able to speak different languages moreover to English, 2000 and 2010.
In 2000, 30% of pupils did not speak other languages. 15% of students spoke in French as well as 15% of pupils spoke another laguages. 10% of students spoke German olny. Moreover, 10% of pupils were abel to speak in two other languages. 20% of students spoke Spanish only.
As seen in the chart, in 2010, 35% of students not abel to speak other languages. 20% of students spoke another language. 15% of students knew two other languages. However, 10% of students spoke Spanish. Similarly, 10% of students spoke French and 10% of students were abel to speak in German.
Overall, in both decades people were less abel to speak in other languages.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.0 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.0 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.0 |
| Overall | 5.0 |
Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.0
The student attempts to summarise the main features of the two pie charts comparing the proportions of British students able to speak foreign languages in 2000 and 2010. Key data points are reported, such as the proportion of students with no other language (30% in 2000 rising to 35% in 2010) and various specific languages like Spanish and French. However, the response falls short of the 150-word minimum length requirement, containing only 140 words. This under-length impacts the overall development and completeness of the task response. Additionally, the final overview statement ("in both decades people were less abel to speak in other languages") contradicts the data, as the charts actually show a decrease in monolingual speakers and an increase in those speaking other languages over time. These shortcomings place the response at Band 5.0.
Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.0
The text is structured into a basic introduction, two body paragraphs detailing each year, and a brief conclusion. However, the paragraphing and transitions are quite mechanical. The writer relies heavily on simple listing structures ('In 2000, ...', '15% of students ...', '10% of students ...') rather than fluent grouping and comparison of data. Cohesive devices are minimal and sometimes repetitive. While there is a clear attempt to organise the information chronologically, the lack of sophisticated cohesive links and the confusing overall conclusion mean the response does not achieve a higher score. It fits the Band 5.0 descriptor for organisation and cohesion.
Lexical Resource — Band 5.0
The vocabulary used is relatively basic and repetitive, such as 'proportion', 'students', 'spoke', and 'languages'. There are several lexical and spelling errors throughout the text, including 'laguages' instead of 'languages' and 'olny' instead of 'only'. The range of vocabulary is barely adequate to communicate the task information, relying heavily on direct lifts from the prompt. There is little use of less common lexical items or paraphrasing. These limitations reflect the characteristics of a Band 5.0 for lexical resource.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0
The student attempts a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, but grammatical accuracy is weak. There are multiple recurring errors with verb forms and adjectives, most notably 'not abel to' and 'were less abel to speak' instead of 'able'. Furthermore, the opening sentence has a missing preposition or awkward phrasing ('illustrates the proportion ... moreover to English'). Grammatical errors are frequent and occasionally cause minor strain for the reader, though meaning remains generally clear. These persistent errors across a limited range of structures warrant a band score of 5.0.
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.