Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-10-08

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 two pie charts illustrates the percentage of British pupils able to speak other languages such as( on other language, French, German, Spanish, Another language, Tow other language) than English, in 2000 and 2010.

Overall, In 2000 all students of British are able to speak in English and also other languages. In contrast. 30% of students unable to speak other language expect English. In 2010 it is increased significantly to 35%. German only remained unchanged in both years. Eventually, only French and Another language spoken students was decreased by compared to both years.

Initially, in 2000 all British pupils are able speak in English also the students speak No Other Language contributed highest proportion by 30% and it is increased by 5% in 2010. In addition, British students speak english and also spoke Two other languages and only German by same percentage of 10% respectively in 2000. Similarly, the proportion only German and Two other languages remained same in 2010.

Moreover, The only French and Another languages are speak by British students accounted 30% with 15% each language in 2000. In contrast, in 2010 only French spoken learners was decreased by 5% and Another language increased by 5%. Eventually, there are 20% of students are able to speak in Spanish only in 2000 and it was decreased by 10% in 2010.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You report the main categories and several accurate comparisons, including the rise in “No Other Language” from 30% to 35%, German remaining at 10%, and Spanish falling from 20% to 10%. The response also includes a clear attempt at an overview. However, the overview is partly unclear: “all students of British are able to speak in English” does not describe the chart’s key comparison, and the statement that French and “Another language” both decreased is inaccurate because the latter rose from 15% to 20%. Later details correct this trend, but the conflicting summary weakens the report. To make the key features more fully addressed, state clearly that the no-other-language group was largest in both years and distinguish the increases from the decreases.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, an overview, and paragraphs giving details for the two years and language groups. This gives the reader a generally coherent route through the information. However, progression is sometimes weakened by mechanical or confusing links such as “In contrast,” “Eventually,” and “Similarly,” which do not always express the relationship between the figures. The overview also conflicts with the later account of “Another language,” making the comparison harder to follow. Some information is repeated, particularly the unchanged German and two-language figures. Grouping the data more deliberately—for example, increases together and decreases or unchanged figures together—and using precise references would make the organisation clearer.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use relevant chart vocabulary, including “percentage,” “proportion,” “accounted,” “increased,” and “decreased,” so the reader can usually identify the comparisons you intend. However, the range is limited and several phrases are unnatural or imprecise, such as “students speak No Other Language,” “only French spoken learners,” and “contributed highest proportion.” These choices sometimes make the meaning difficult to interpret, especially when describing whether students speak a language in addition to English. There are also spelling and form problems, including “Tow” for “Two” and inconsistent capitalisation of “English.” Aim for concise, standard chart language and use the category labels accurately; this will improve precision without requiring more elaborate vocabulary.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

The response attempts both simple and more complex sentences, including comparisons across years, and the main figures are generally understandable. However, some errors in sentence structure, agreement, articles, and punctuation reduce accuracy. For example, “The two pie charts illustrates” has subject–verb disagreement, while “Another languages are speak” has an incorrect verb form and number. The opening list also lacks a clear grammatical construction, and “In contrast. 30%” uses a full stop where the comparison should continue. Several sentences begin with capitalised linking words after commas or use inconsistent sentence boundaries. Check agreement between subjects and verbs, form complete clauses, and proofread punctuation while retaining the useful range of comparison structures you attempt.

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.