Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-10-29

IELTS Writing Task 1 question

The take below gives information about the underground railway systems in six cities.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

Underground Railway Systems

City	Date opened	Kilometers of route	Passengers per year (in millions)
London	1863	394	775
Paris	1900	199	1191
Tokyo	1927	155	1927
Washington DC	1976	126	144
Kyoto	1981	11	45
Los Angeles	2001	28	50

Student answer (Band 6.0)

The given data represents the details about under ground railway routes in London, Paris, Tokyo, Washington DC, Kyoto and Los Angeles.

Overall, London have the longest underground railway route, while Kyoto smallest railway route. In addition, passengers who travel most through this routes is Tokyo, while Kyoto records minimum number of passenger per year.

Firstly, London have the longest subway line 394km that was opened in 1863 with 775 million passengers every year, while Paris have 199km of underground railway system that was established in 1900 and records 1191 million visitors every year. After that with record of highest passenger every year 1927 million with 155km of underground system was Tokyo opened in 1927.

Secondly, Kyoto had smallest underground railway system 11km opened in 1981 with 45 million passengers every year that is least of all cities, while Washington DC have 126km route opened in 1976 with 144 million passenger every year. In Addition, Los Angeles have 28km route opened in 2001 with 50 million passenger every year.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 7.0

The response selects the main features and makes relevant comparisons: London has the longest route, Kyoto the shortest, and Tokyo carries the most passengers, while Kyoto has the fewest. It also reports figures for all six cities, so the key information is covered. The overview is clear, and the body supports it with dates, route lengths and annual passenger totals. To make the summary more fully developed, compare the figures more directly—for example, Tokyo’s passenger total is far higher than Paris’s despite its shorter route, while Washington’s route is much longer than Kyoto’s but its passenger figure is only moderately higher. Avoid describing the data as “visitors,” since it concerns passengers using the railway.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction, an overview and two body paragraphs grouping the cities. The progression from the larger systems to the smaller ones is generally easy to follow, and linking expressions such as “Firstly,” “Secondly” and “while” help signal comparisons. This meets the lower-band expectation of coherent overall arrangement, with some evidence of more flexible organisation. However, the sequencing is not entirely consistent: Tokyo is introduced after Paris despite having the highest passenger total, and Washington is grouped with the smaller systems even though its route is relatively long. Repeated “every year” phrasing and “In addition” make cohesion somewhat mechanical. Grouping by a clear comparison, such as route size or passenger use, would strengthen progression.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

The vocabulary is sufficient to communicate the table’s main information, with relevant terms such as “underground railway route,” “records” and “passengers per year.” However, the range is limited and several choices are imprecise or repetitive. “Visitors” is not an accurate substitute for railway passengers, and “subway line” shifts terminology without adding precision. Phrases such as “longest underground railway route” and “smallest underground railway system” are repeated rather than varied. There are also spelling and form issues, including “under ground” and “In Addition.” More precise data-reporting language and accurate collocations would improve clarity and control; for example, use “carried” or “served” for passenger totals and “route length” when comparing network size.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

The response attempts both simple and complex sentences, including comparisons joined with “while” and clauses describing opening dates. Meaning is generally recoverable, but errors in agreement and sentence construction are noticeable. For example, “London have” and “Paris have” should use “has,” while “passengers who travel most through this routes is Tokyo” has problems with agreement, reference and sentence structure. Articles are also missing in phrases such as “Kyoto smallest railway route” and “had smallest underground railway system.” The repeated pattern of long sentences joined by “while” limits grammatical variety and makes some comparisons awkward. Practise accurate subject–verb agreement, articles and concise comparative clauses, then check each sentence for a clear subject and verb.

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.