Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-10-21

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 charts show us the data of the two years 2000 and 2010. Since the difference between them is big so there are big changes. Firtsly, when the survey is taken in the year 2000 30 percent of the student only spoke english language. You can say these were the local students. Meanwhile, only french was spoken by 15 percent of the student. Only 10 percent of the student spoke only german with 20 percent of the student speaking only spanish. Now for the students who spoke more than one language were 15 percent and 10 percent. Those who fall in 10 percent category spoke two other languages while those who fall in 15 percent spoke only one other language.

Now for the 2010 survey, things change dynamically. 35% of the student spoke no other language whivh is 5% more than 10 years ago. While french, german and spanish was spoken by 10 percent of the student each. As far as the student who spoke more than one language are concerned there is a increase of 5%. With 15% student speaking two other language and 20% speaking another language.

If we compare the both survey their was 10% decrease in spanish speaking student and 5% decrease in french speaking students. If we talk about the two other language an increase of 5% was recorded and 5% for another language. Students who spoke no other language was also incraesed by 5 percent.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You report most of the chart categories and several accurate figures, including the rise in students speaking no other language from 30% to 35%, and the falls in Spanish and French. However, the opening claim that there were “big changes” is broad, and the response does not establish a clear overview of the main pattern: the no-other-language group was largest in both years, while the combined share speaking another language or languages increased. Some descriptions are unclear, particularly “students who spoke more than one language,” which appears to group the “another language” and “two other languages” categories inaccurately. The unsupported claim that these were “local students” should be omitted. Select the key trends and explain the categories precisely to make the summary more complete and clear.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response has a recognisable sequence: it describes 2000, moves to 2010, and then compares the years. This overall arrangement helps the reader follow the information, and phrases such as “Now for the 2010 survey” signal the shift. However, the progression is sometimes mechanical, with repeated openings such as “Now for” and “If we compare.” The final comparison also repeats figures already given rather than drawing the main trends together. Some references are unclear, for example “those who fall in 10 percent category,” which makes the reader work out which chart group is meant. Use a concise overview and organise the details by meaningful comparisons, with clear labels for each category.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use enough chart-related vocabulary to communicate the basic information, including “percent,” “decrease,” “increase,” and “spoken.” However, the range is limited and several expressions are imprecise or unnatural for an academic summary. “Things change dynamically” is vague, while “the student who spoke more than one language” does not accurately distinguish the chart’s categories. There are also noticeable spelling errors, including “Firtsly,” “whivh,” and “incraesed,” which reduce the accuracy and polish of the report. Aim for precise terms such as “proportion,” “share,” and “category,” and use the chart labels consistently rather than paraphrasing them in ways that blur their meaning.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

The response attempts some longer sentences and comparisons, but grammatical control is uneven, and errors occur frequently enough to make parts less clear. For example, “Since the difference between them is big so there are big changes” incorrectly combines “since” and “so,” and “french, german and spanish was spoken” has subject–verb agreement errors. Singular and plural forms are also inconsistent in phrases such as “30 percent of the student” and “two other language.” Tense and sentence construction are sometimes awkward, as in “when the survey is taken in the year 2000.” Use past tense consistently for the chart data, check agreement after percentages, and build shorter, accurate sentences before adding more complex comparisons.

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.