Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-10-06

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 pie charts compares the percentage of British students at a university in England who were able to speak other languages along with English in 2000 and 2010.

Overall, the proportion of British students who were not able to speak another language remaind on top in 2000 and 2010. While there is slightly change in the ratio of other language categories being spoken at university.

The British students who prefer speaking German only remained stable. Students who were able to communicate in two other languages contributed to 10% in 2000, which minimally increased to 15% in 2010. The share of students, who speaked French only was 15% in 2000, and the share dropped to 10% in 2010.

In 2000, 20% British students were responsible for speaking Spanish only, which reduced to 10% in 2010. Students who used to communicate in another language in 2000 contributed for 15% in 2000, and in 2010 the number rose to 20%. In 2000, 30% student doesn't knew other language fro communication and the number increased to 35% in 2010.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

You cover the main categories and report the figures accurately: for example, Spanish falls from 20% to 10%, while “another language” rises from 15% to 20%. Your overview also identifies the largest category in both years and notes that the other proportions changed. This meets the task well, and the range of relevant comparisons supports a strong response. To make the overview more precise, state the key overall contrast: the share speaking no other language increased, while the combined share speaking at least one other language consequently decreased. The German-only category is correctly described as stable, but its value of 10% in both years would make that comparison clearer. Some descriptions, such as students who “prefer” German, imply preference rather than simply reporting ability.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a clear basic structure: an introduction, an overview, and two paragraphs reporting details. The figures are generally grouped in a sensible way, and time markers such as “In 2000” help readers follow the comparisons. However, progression within the detail paragraphs is not always smooth: the first moves from German to two languages and French, while the next returns to Spanish and then the remaining categories. Some linking and reference choices also feel mechanical or unclear, particularly “the number” when referring to a percentage share. Grouping categories with similar trends, then using consistent comparisons between the two years, would create a more logical flow. The overview’s second sentence is also vague, so it does not guide the reader clearly through the details.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use enough topic-related vocabulary to communicate the main data, including “proportion,” “share,” “remained stable,” and “increased.” However, several choices are inaccurate or unnatural for describing chart data. “Prefer speaking German” suggests a personal preference, while the chart only reports language ability; “contributed to” and “responsible for speaking” are also awkward ways to describe percentages. There are noticeable word-form and spelling problems, including “remaind,” “speaked,” and “doesn't knew,” which reduce precision. The repeated use of “students” and “share” also limits flexibility. Aim for standard reporting collocations such as “accounted for,” “stood at,” and “the proportion of students able to speak,” and check spelling and word forms carefully.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt a mixture of simple statements and longer comparisons, and the meaning of most figures remains understandable. However, errors occur across sentence structures, verb forms, agreement, and articles. For example, “The pie charts compares” has a subject–verb agreement error, while “30% student doesn't knew” combines an incorrect singular noun with an incorrect verb form. “The proportion … remaind on top” also contains a tense/form error, and “20% British students” is missing an article or other determiner. Some sentences use relative clauses or time comparisons, but these are not consistently controlled. Practise accurate basic reporting patterns first, then build longer sentences around them; check that plural subjects, past-tense verbs, and articles are correct.

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.