Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

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

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 illustrates the percentage of British graduates in England at a University who know to speak other languages apart from English in the year 2000 and 2010.

Overall, Spanish was the highest spoken language in both the years. While the minimum speaking was German in both the years.

The number of students who can speak Spanish was 20% in 2000 and has increased by 5% 2010 and it remained the highest spoken language. However, the combined per cent of pupils who can converse in another and two languages was 25% in 2000, which has increased by 5% in each language by 2010 with a total of 35%. Whereas, pupils who cannot speak anything other than English were 20% in 2000, and by 2010 the count decreased to 18%.

The novices who can converse in German were only 10% in both the given years. Moreover, pupils who can communicate in French were 15% in 2000, which has decreased by 5% in 2010.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 4.0

The response identifies the two years and attempts an overview, but several central figures and trends are misreported, so the chart is only minimally addressed. Spanish fell from 20% to 10%, rather than increasing by 5%, and the share with no other language rose from 30% to 35%, rather than falling to 20% and then 18%. The combined categories “another language” and “two other languages” did rise from 25% to 35%, but the response incorrectly says each increased by 5%; in fact, they rose from 15% to 20% and from 10% to 15%. German was tied for the smallest share in 2000, not uniquely the minimum. Check each figure against the chart before describing trends, and build the overview around the actual largest changes.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, an overview, and paragraphs comparing selected categories. Linking expressions such as “Overall,” “However,” and “Moreover” help signal relationships, and the reader can generally follow the sequence. However, the overview is undermined by inaccurate claims, and the body moves between Spanish, combined categories, no other language, German, and French without a consistently clear comparison plan. “Whereas” also introduces a fragment-like transition rather than a fully integrated contrast. Group the categories more deliberately—for example, first compare the largest shares and then the remaining language groups—and use linking words only where the relationship is clear. This would make the progression more controlled and reduce the impression of a list.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

The response uses a reasonable range of task-related vocabulary, including “percentage,” “combined,” “converse,” and “communicate,” and the meaning is usually understandable. However, several choices are unnatural or imprecise for describing chart data. “The minimum speaking” and “The novices” do not clearly name the relevant categories, while “know to speak” and “the count decreased” are awkward collocations. Repeatedly calling the groups “pupils” also varies the wording without improving precision; “students” is more appropriate and consistent with the chart. Aim for accurate, conventional reporting language such as “the proportion who spoke” and “accounted for.” More precise vocabulary would help the comparisons sound clearer and more academic.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

There is an attempt to use both simple and more complex structures, including contrast clauses beginning with “While” and “which.” Most sentences remain understandable, but some grammatical errors are noticeable. The opening has subject–verb disagreement in “The pie charts illustrates,” and “in the year 2000 and 2010” needs a more suitable time expression. Tense control is also inconsistent: “was 20%” is followed by “has increased,” although both years are in the past. The sentence beginning “Whereas” is not fully integrated with the preceding sentence, and “increased by 5% 2010” is missing a preposition. Use past simple consistently for the chart years and check agreement, sentence boundaries, and prepositions when revising.

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.