Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 11 · 2026-11-04

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 5.0)

The table express the information about the construction of railway tracks with their range in kilometer and their numbers of passengers per year. This table provide us comparison in their opening dates and their furthur information.

This comparison between this five cities explained that these railway tracks constructed one by one.

if we talk about london its construction was held on 1863 and its 394 kilometer in range that was actualy big number and the got 775 millions of passengers in one year. Paris is second largest route in table and it was constructed in 1900 after london railway and they have 1191 million pessangers in one year such a big number.While tokyo railway track was constructed in 1927 after paris one. This railway track ranges in 155 kilometer with 1927 million passengers per year.

Railway track in Washingtone Dc was constructed in 1976 and this route is shorter than tokyo. Kyoto opened in 1981 and the got 45 million passengers in year containing 11 kilometer of track. Los Angeles begin in 2001 and the got 50 million passengers in year with 28 kilometer track.

Conclusion is that all of that railway tracks were opened one by one with the passage of time and the got millions of passengers per year. This table provide us comparison that tracks.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.0

You report several relevant figures and make useful comparisons, such as identifying London as having the longest route and noting Tokyo’s high annual passenger total. However, the overview is not sufficiently clear: the response mainly says the systems “were opened one by one,” rather than summarising the key contrasts across the table. Some important comparisons are also missing or incomplete, particularly Washington DC’s passenger figure and the fact that Tokyo has the highest passenger use while Kyoto has the shortest route and lowest use. The opening description also calls the data “construction” information, which does not accurately capture the table’s focus on opening dates, route length and passenger numbers. A clearer overview and more complete, accurate reporting of the main features would strengthen the response.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a basic paragraph structure: an introduction, a sequence of city details and a concluding statement. The city-by-city order makes much of the information easy to follow, and phrases such as “after London” and “while” attempt to connect comparisons. However, progression is limited because the body largely lists cities rather than grouping or comparing the figures by meaningful patterns. The conclusion repeats the idea that the systems opened over time without adding a useful summary. Some links are awkward or unclear, including “This comparison between this five cities explained,” and several sentences run together without adequate punctuation. Organise the data into clearer comparisons—for example, older and longer systems versus newer and shorter ones—and use linking phrases accurately.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use some relevant topic vocabulary, including “route,” “kilometer,” “passengers per year” and “opened,” so the reader can generally understand what the figures describe. However, the range is limited and several word choices or collocations are inaccurate or repetitive. “Construction of railway tracks” is not a natural description of the table, while “range in kilometer” should refer to route length. The repeated use of “got” for passenger totals is also too informal and imprecise for an academic summary. Spelling errors such as “furthur,” “actualy” and “pessangers,” along with inconsistent forms such as “Washingtone,” reduce accuracy. Aim for precise data-reporting language and check spelling carefully.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

The response attempts both simple sentences and longer comparisons, for example, “Paris is second largest route in table and it was constructed in 1900 after london railway.” However, the longer structures are often faulty, and errors occur frequently enough to make some sentences difficult to read. Examples include “The table express” and “This table provide,” where subject–verb agreement is incorrect, as well as “the got 775 millions,” which has an incomplete subject and an incorrect plural form. Articles and sentence boundaries are also problematic, as in “Paris is second largest route” and the run-on transition “number.While tokyo.” Use shorter, controlled sentences first, checking agreement, articles, and punctuation before attempting 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.