Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-10-02
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 charts illustrate the percentage of British students at one higher education institute in England who were able to speak languages apart from English, in 2000 and 2010.
Overall, 30% of the students did not speak any other language while collectively 20% learners were able to speak two languages and German language in 2000. However, in 2010, the students who did not speak any other language were at 35% and 10% learners were proficient to speak each Spenish only, French only and German language.
In 2000, 30% students were not capable to speak any other language, while 20% were able to communicate in Spanish only. Moreover, 15% of students were able to talk in each French language and in another language. Just 10% learners were proficient in each German language and in two other language.
In 2010, the percentage of students to speak no other language was increased by 5% and reached at 35%. The scholars proprtion to conservate in another language was at 20%. Accumulatively 30% leraners were able to speak Spanish only, French only and German only in 2010.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.0 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.0 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.5 |
| Overall | 5.0 |
Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.0
The response addresses the task only partially. While the student attempts to summarise the charts by providing data for both 2000 and 2010, the selection of information is inconsistent and includes some inaccuracies. For instance, the overview contains a confusing formulation regarding the 2000 figures ('collectively 20% learners were able to speak two languages and German language'), and some data points are misreported or awkwardly grouped. The progression is somewhat hindered by a lack of clear comparison between the two years, focusing instead on isolated listings of percentages. To reach a higher band, the student should provide a clearer, more accurate overview of the main trends and integrate comparisons more effectively across the two time periods rather than relying on a mechanical listing of data.
Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.0
There is some organisation in the response, with paragraphs dedicated to an introduction, an overview, and the separate years, but there is no clear overall progression. Cohesive devices are basic and sometimes repetitive or inaccurate, such as the overuse of simple transitional phrases ('In 2000', 'In 2010'). Referencing and logical sequencing within sentences occasionally falter, making the flow somewhat mechanical. Paragraphing is attempted, but the internal structure of the paragraphs lacks sophisticated cohesive links. To improve, the student needs to use a wider and more accurate range of cohesive devices to show a clear logical relationship between ideas and ensure smoother transitions between sentences and paragraphs.
Lexical Resource: Band 5.0
The vocabulary used is limited but minimally adequate to convey basic information about the charts. There are noticeable lexical errors and awkward word choices, such as 'institute' instead of 'institution', 'Spenish' (spelling error), 'scholars' proportion to conservate' (inappropriate word choice for 'proportion of students to converse'), and 'leraners' (spelling error). While the student attempts some less common vocabulary, inaccuracies in word choice and spelling cause some difficulty for the reader. To achieve a higher score, the student must expand their lexical range, ensure accurate word formation and spelling, and use vocabulary more naturally and precisely when describing statistical data.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5
The response demonstrates a limited range of sentence structures, relying heavily on simple constructions and straightforward subject-verb-object patterns. Attempts at more complex structures often result in faulty grammar, such as in the phrase 'the percentage of students to speak no other language was increased' or 'were not capable to speak'. There are frequent errors in verb forms, prepositions, and awkward phrasing that require the reader to slow down. To move up to the next band, the student needs to incorporate a wider variety of complex sentence structures with greater accuracy and improve control over grammatical patterns and prepositions.
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.