Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-10-01
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 following pie charts show proportions of british stidents at a university of england who were able to speak other languages along english, in years of 2000 and 2010, and changes in their percentages among overall student body.
The proportion of the chart indicate that in years of 2000 and 2010, the proportion of students having german language in addition stayed same. Proportion of students speaking one or two more languages in addition to english increased, as well as percentage of students speaking only english while percentage of students having french and spanish as their addition language dropped.
The chart entailing year of 2000 illustrates that 30% of stdents spoke only english. Proportion of students speaking german and two more languages with english were both 10%. Students speaking french and one more language were both 15% while spanish speakers were of 20% in proprtion.
The chart describing the proportions of british students in year 2010 entail that spanish, german and french speakers were all 10% in proportion. 35% spoke no other language in addition. Students speaking anopther language had 20% of proprtion while students speaking two more languages in addition were 15% in student body.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.5 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.5 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.0 |
| Overall | 5.5 |
Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5
The response addresses the task partially by reporting some main features and making basic comparisons between the two years. However, the information is sometimes mechanical and lacks depth in key areas. For instance, the overview provided in the opening paragraph mentions that the proportion of students speaking German 'stayed same' (which matches the 10% figure in both charts), but other trends are listed in a somewhat rushed list-like fashion without fully extending the analysis. The description of the 2000 chart correctly notes that 30% of students spoke only English and 20% spoke Spanish, but the overall progression lacks a clear, cohesive narrative throughout the body paragraphs. To move to a higher band, the writer needs to select and highlight the most striking differences more insightfully and support all main trends with clearer data integration.
Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5
The essay demonstrates some organization, dividing the response into a clear introduction and separate body paragraphs for each year. However, there is no clear overall progression linking the two time periods smoothly, and the relationships between ideas feel somewhat disjointed. Cohesive devices are used in a basic and repetitive manner, such as the frequent reliance on 'Proportion of students...' and 'Students speaking...' to begin sentences. Additionally, referencing is occasionally imprecise, which disrupts the flow of the text. To achieve a higher score, the writer should employ a wider range of cohesive devices naturally and ensure that sentences follow a logical, progressive sequence that connects the data between 2000 and 2010 more effectively.
Lexical Resource: Band 5.0
The vocabulary used is limited but minimally adequate for the task, with frequent reliance on basic and repetitive terms like 'proportion', 'students', and 'speakers'. There are several noticeable lexical errors, including awkward word choices, incorrect word forms, and spelling mistakes such as 'stidents', 'anopther', and 'proprtion'. Furthermore, phrasing such as 'along english' instead of 'in addition to English' indicates a restricted command of collocation. To improve in this area, the writer needs to expand their vocabulary range, incorporate less common synonyms with greater precision, and pay closer attention to spelling and standard collocational patterns.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0
The response displays a very limited range of sentence structures, relying mostly on simple sentences and repetitive subject-verb-complement patterns. Attempts at more complex structures are often faulty, as seen in awkward phrasing like 'The proportion of the chart indicate...' where subject-verb agreement is neglected. Frequent grammatical errors are present throughout the text, including missing articles (e.g., 'in year 2010'), incorrect prepositions (e.g., 'in addition language'), and clumsy phrasing. These errors can occasionally cause some difficulty for the reader. To reach the next band, the writer must incorporate a wider variety of complex sentence forms with better control over grammar, punctuation, and articles.
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.