Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-10-12

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 two different pie charts gives information about the UK students who speak distinct languages in addition to English at one particular university in England, between 2000 and 2010.

Overall, the proportion of students who prefer speaking english had dominated in both year. its shares increased slightly over time. While, speaker who speaks another and two other languages in addition to english were increased, whereas spanish and french experienced declined margin throughout the year. German became the only language which remained stable figurs in both year.

In 2000, the proportion of english speaker were at 30% followed by spanish at 20%. English language gained its percentage by 5% whereas, spanish decreased by 10% in 2010. In additional, French also showed a declined margin in 2010 at 10% which started at 15% from 2000.

Whereas, student who speak one and addition two languages were at 10% and 15% (two languages and another language) in 2000 respectively. Both then experienced a slight inclined shares of 5% in 2010 and accounted for 15% and 20%. Germen became the only language which stayed relatively similar in both years at 10%.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

You identify the main overall changes and support them with relevant figures: the no-other-language group rises from 30% to 35%, Spanish falls from 20% to 10%, and German remains at 10%. You also report the increases for “another language” and “two other languages.” This gives the response a clear overview and covers the chart’s main categories. However, the overview says students “prefer speaking english,” which misrepresents the chart: it shows whether students could speak additional languages, not a preference for English. The description of the 2000 figures for the two-language categories is also unclear, and the comparison of the largest groups could be more precise. Clarifying these points would make the reporting more complete and accurate.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a recognisable structure: an introduction, an overview, and two paragraphs comparing the figures. The final paragraph groups the smaller categories and German together, while the preceding paragraph focuses on the larger shares, which helps the reader follow the information. Some linking is effective, such as “whereas” to signal contrasting trends. However, transitions are occasionally awkward or mechanical, particularly the opening “Whereas” in the final paragraph, which leaves the sentence fragment-like. The sequence in “10% and 15% (two languages and another language) in 2000 respectively” is difficult to interpret, and “In additional” does not connect ideas naturally. Use clearer references and direct comparisons to improve cohesion.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use a reasonable range of chart-related vocabulary, including “proportion,” “accounted for,” “remained stable,” and “experienced declined.” These choices show an attempt to describe changes rather than simply list figures. However, several word choices or collocations are inaccurate or unnatural, such as “prefer speaking,” “declined margin,” “inclined shares,” and “English speaker” for the category with no other language. Spelling and capitalisation are also inconsistent, including “Germen,” “figurs,” and repeated lowercase “english.” These errors do not prevent the reader from understanding the main trends, but they reduce precision. Prefer standard reporting phrases such as “the proportion rose,” “fell by,” and “students who spoke another language.”

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt a mixture of simple and more complex sentences, including contrasts with “whereas” and clauses beginning “which.” The main comparisons are generally understandable, but grammatical errors occur across the response. For example, “The two different pie charts gives” has subject–verb disagreement, while “in both year” and “the proportion … were” show problems with number agreement. The overview also shifts awkwardly between singular and plural forms in “speaker who speaks … were increased.” Sentence boundaries and punctuation need attention: “While, speaker…” is not a complete, well-formed sentence, and commas are sometimes placed incorrectly before “whereas.” Check agreement, articles, plurals, and sentence completeness when editing.

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.