Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · 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 6.0)

The given pie charts illustrate the percentage of britist students admitted at an England university who were capable of speaking other languages in addition to english in 2000 and 2010.

Overall, the highest proportion of students were only able to speak english in both the years. In 2000, students who can speak two other languages and German language were equally low while in 2010, the proportion of students who were able to speak German, French and Spanish was equally low.

In 2000, 30% students were only familiar with englisg language while the proportion of students who can speak French and another language was equal, at 15% each.The percentage of people who were able to speak Spanish was 20%, which ranks second highest language to be spoken among students. The students who can speak German and two other languages account for the remaining 10% at each.

In contrast, in 2010, 35% of students were only familiar with english and were not able to speak other language while 20% of students were able to speak another language.The proportion of students who can speak German, Frenchh and Spanish were equally low, each at 10% while 15% of students knew how to speak two other languages.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

You cover both years and report the main categories with figures that match the charts, including the rise in “No Other Language” from 30% to 35% and the fall in Spanish from 20% to 10%. The overview identifies the largest group in both years and notes the low figures in 2010. However, the overview could make the main changes clearer: students speaking another language and two other languages increased, while French declined and German stayed unchanged. The claim that students were “only able to speak English” is understandable but should be expressed as having no other language, since the chart does not measure English ability itself. Some comparisons are reported category by category rather than synthesised.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction, an overview, and separate paragraphs for 2000 and 2010. This makes the information easy to locate, and the contrast marker “In contrast” appropriately introduces the second year. The progression is generally coherent, but the organisation is somewhat mechanical because most figures are listed one after another rather than grouped around meaningful changes. For example, the final paragraph could compare the rise in “another language” and “two other languages” with the declines in Spanish and French. Some references, such as “the remaining 10%,” are not fully precise because they refer to two separate categories. More deliberate grouping and clearer referencing would strengthen cohesion.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use a relevant range of chart vocabulary, including “proportion,” “percentage,” “equally low,” and “in contrast,” so the main information is communicated. However, several choices are imprecise or unnatural for this task: “admitted at an England university” does not accurately describe the students, and “only familiar with English” is less precise than the chart category. Repetition of “students who can speak” also limits flexibility. There are spelling errors in “britist,” “englisg,” and “Frenchh,” as well as inconsistent capitalisation of language names. Aim for accurate, concise reporting verbs and category labels, and proofread spelling carefully; these changes would make the vocabulary more controlled and natural.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You use both simple and more developed sentence forms, including clauses introduced by “while” and “which,” and the meaning is generally clear. Some grammatical errors remain. For example, “30% students” needs an article or a suitable construction (“30% of students”), and “the proportion … was equal” should agree with the singular subject, whereas “the proportion … were equally low” has a subject–verb agreement problem. Tense also shifts between past reporting and “can speak”; use past forms consistently when describing the 2000 and 2010 data. There are occasional punctuation and spacing issues, such as the missing space after “each.” Greater consistency in agreement, articles, and tense would improve accuracy.

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.