Band 6.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.5 · 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 6.5)

The pie charts display the percentage of English students who were able to speak other languages except English at one institute in the period of 2000 and 2010.

Overall, the proportion of only English speaking students were higher than any other language proportion students in both years. The British students who only spoke French or Spanish had observed decrease in their proportions. Whereas, the students knew just one other language or two other languages had increased their numbers among this period.

In 2000, the British students who knew no other language had greatest numbers of 30% which further increased to 35% in 2010. The English speaking students who spoke one other language increased their proportion from 15% in 2000 to 20% in 2010 which was second highest proportion in university. In addition, the proportion of English students who knew two other languages were 10% in 2000 and then increased their proportion to 15% in 2010.

On the other hand, the Spanish speaking students had second highest proportion in 2000 at 20% and their dominance significantly decreased to 10% in 2010. Likewise, the French known students were present in 15% in university but they also decreased to 10% in 2010. The students whose proportion remained constant at 10% in both years were German speaking students.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.5

The response selects the main comparisons accurately and gives a clear overview: students speaking no other language formed the largest group in both years, while the Spanish- and French-only shares fell and the other-language categories generally rose. The figures reported—such as 30% to 35% for no other language and 20% to 10% for Spanish—match the charts. You also include the unchanged German figure. This is a well-supported account of the key features. To make the overview more precise, avoid saying that “only English speaking students” were higher than every other group: this category was largest, but it did not represent a majority. Also distinguish students speaking “another language” from those speaking exactly one other language, since the chart labels are not fully interchangeable.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 7.0

The response is organised into a clear introduction, overview and two detail paragraphs. The progression from the overall pattern to increases and then decreases is easy to follow, and linking expressions such as “Overall,” “In addition,” “On the other hand” and “Likewise” help signal relationships. The information is grouped sensibly, with the stable German category included at the end. Some cohesion is less controlled because “Whereas” begins a sentence fragment after the overview, and “among this period” is an awkward link. Repeated references to “proportion” also make parts of the report feel mechanical. Use complete contrast clauses and vary referencing—for example, “this share” or “the figure”—to make the flow more natural.

Lexical Resource: Band 6.0

There is adequate vocabulary for describing the chart, including “proportion,” “increased,” “decreased,” “remained constant” and “dominance.” These choices allow the main trends to be communicated, and the meaning is generally clear. However, several word choices and collocations are inaccurate or unnatural, such as “greatest numbers” for percentages, “French known students,” and “were present in 15% in university.” “Dominance” is also too strong for a category’s share. The repeated use of “proportion” limits flexibility. Aim for precise chart language and natural collocations, such as “accounted for,” “the share of students,” and “fell to.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

The response attempts a mix of simple and more complex sentences, including comparisons with “which” clauses and contrastive structures. Most of the data remains understandable, but some grammatical errors recur and occasionally make relationships less clear. For example, “the proportion … were higher” has subject–verb disagreement, while “Whereas, the students knew…” is an incomplete clause. There are also problems with articles and sentence patterns in “had greatest numbers” and “were present in 15%.” Check agreement between the subject and verb, and ensure that subordinate clauses are attached to a complete main clause. More consistently accurate sentence construction would strengthen the report.

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.