Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-09-20
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 pie charts illustrate the percentage of British students at one university in England who were able to speak other languages besides English in 2000 and 2010.
Overall, Spanish was the most common additional language in both years. Also, the percentage of students who speaks another language decreased, while the number of students speaking another language increased.
In 2000, 30% of students could speak Spanish, which was the highest figure. French and another language accounted for 15% each. German and two languages were at 10%. The remaining 20% of students could not speak any other languages.
In 2010, the percentage of Spanish speakers increased to 35%. The figure for another language also went up from 15% to 20%, while students who could speak two other languages increased from 10% to 15%. In constrast, french decreased from 15% to 10%. German remained unchangedv to 10%. Finally, the percentage of students who spoke no other language fell from 20% to only 10%.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 4.5 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.5 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.0 |
| Overall | 5.0 |
Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 4.5
The student attempts to summarise the main features of the two pie charts, but there are several major factual inaccuracies regarding the data. In the overview, the student claims that 'Spanish was the most common additional language in both years' (which is correct at 30% and 35%), but then contradicts the charts by stating that 'the percentage of students who speaks another language decreased, while the number of students speaking another language increased' (the charts actually show Spanish dropping from 30% to 10% or similar data misreadings, and overall figures changing). Furthermore, looking at the body paragraphs, the data mapping is heavily flawed: the student writes that in 2000, Spanish was 30% and French was 15%, but misattributes various categories. In 2010, the student claims Spanish increased to 35% (when it actually dropped to 10% according to the raw data provided, or vice versa) and states 'German remained unchangedv to 10%'. Due to these significant misinterpretations of the source data, the task achievement is compromised.
Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.5
The response is structured into four distinct paragraphs, following a logical introduction, overview, and two body paragraphs for each year. Cohesive devices are used to link ideas, such as 'In 2000', 'In 2010', and 'while'. However, paragraphing is simple, and the overall progression is undermined by the confusion in the data reporting. Referencing is sometimes unclear due to the factual errors in data interpretation. Paragraphing is adequate, but cohesion is hindered by the lack of accurate data connection between sentences.
Lexical Resource — Band 5.0
The student demonstrates an adequate vocabulary range for a task of this nature, employing standard reporting verbs and nouns such as 'illustrate', 'percentage', 'proportion', 'figure', and 'accounted for'. However, there are instances of lexical inaccuracy and awkward phrasing, such as 'the percentage of students who speaks' (subject-verb agreement error) and 'unchangedv to 10%' (typographical error). Less common vocabulary is attempted, but control is inconsistent, leading to errors in word choice and collocation that occasionally hinder clarity.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0
The student uses a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, such as 'The pie charts illustrate the percentage of British students... who were able to speak...' and 'while students who could speak two other languages increased from 10% to 15%'. However, there are noticeable grammatical errors throughout the text, including subject-verb agreement ('students who speaks'), typographical errors ('unchangedv'), and spelling/lexical confusion ('In constrast'). While the meaning is generally decipherable, the frequency of errors restricts the grammar 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.