Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-09-21
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 pi charts exhibits the information about the percentages of British students at a university who has the ability to speak varity of different langauges along with the mother tongue English in 10 years of time.
Overall, it can be viewed that for both of the years 2000 and 2010, the students speaking no other language has the maximum percentage among all and german as the least spoken language.
The specified statistics in 2000 are as followed, only 20% of the students have the ability to Speak Spanish, their were only 15% students who know and speak French as well as any other langauge and there are only 10% of the students who can speak German language along with any two other languages.
If the statistics for the year 2010 are considered, the highest percentage of 35% for no other languages visibily show that in 10 years thier in no major difference. Rest, the percentage of students who can speak French, Spanish and german individually is the quite same that is 10%. From remaining 35 %, students who has the ability to speak another language counts 20% and individual who can speak any two other languages counts 15%.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.0 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.5 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.0 |
| Overall | 5.0 |
Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.0
The student attempts to address the task by summarising the information in the charts regarding British students' language abilities in 2000 and 2010. However, there are several misinterpretations of the data. For instance, the student states that 10% of students could speak German 'along with any two other languages', which misreads the chart categories (German only was 10%, while two other languages was a separate category). An overview is provided, noting that 'no other language' was the highest and German was the lowest, which captures some main features. However, inaccurate reporting of specific data points prevents the response from achieving a higher band. Ideas are presented but contain factual inaccuracies based on the visual data.
Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.5
The response is organised into paragraphs, featuring an introduction, an overall statement, and separate body paragraphs for each year. However, logical progression is hindered by awkward transitions and confusing sentence structures, such as 'The specified statistics in 2000 are as followed'. Cohesive devices are sometimes used inaccurately or mechanically, and referencing is occasionally unclear, such as the ambiguous use of 'Rest' and 'remaining 35%'. Paragraphing is attempted, but the internal flow of ideas lacks the clear logical progression required for higher bands.
Lexical Resource — Band 5.0
The vocabulary used is adequate for communicating the basic topic, but it contains several spelling and word-choice errors, such as 'pi charts', 'exhibits', 'varity', and 'langauges'. The student attempts some less common vocabulary ('percentages', 'statistics', 'individually'), but these are offset by persistent spelling mistakes and imprecise phrasing (e.g., 'individual who can speak any two other languages counts 15%'). The range of vocabulary is limited and repetitive, which impacts the overall lexical score.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0
The student attempts a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, but control over grammar and punctuation is inconsistent. There are several grammatical errors and subject-verb agreement issues, such as 'students speaking no other language has', 'their were only 15% students', and 'students who has the ability'. Punctuation is also weak in places, and some sentences are overly convoluted or run-on. While these errors do not completely obscure meaning, their frequency places the response firmly in the band 5 range.
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.