Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.0 · Cambridge IELTS 15 · 2026-08-23
IELTS Writing Task 1 question
The chart below shows the results of a survey about people’s coffee and tea buying and drinking habits in five Australian cities.
Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
Student answer (Band 5.0)
The bar graph provides the result of a survery about the percentage of people who buy and drink coffee and tea in five Australian cities.
Overall, the percentage of individuals went to a cafe for coffe or tea in last four weeks were the highest in all ceties except for Adelaide, where it was nearly equal with those who bought instant coffee. In contrast, people that bought fresh coffee were represente the lowest proportion across all cities.
People went to a cafe for went to a cafe for coffe or tea made up the highest percentage in Hobart and Melbourne peak at around 63% each, followed by individuals Syndey at roughly 61% and Brisbane ranked third at around 55%. However, this figure was the lowest in Adelaide at about 44%.
Turning to those who visited cafe to buy instant coffee, people in Hobart city constituted the largest proportion at approximately 54%. While for Brisbane there was around 52% individuals bought instant coffee, this figure was about ecaxtly a half (50%). In both Melbourne and Syndey the proportions were
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.0 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.0 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.0 |
| Overall | 5.0 |
Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.0
The response attempts to summarize the main features of the chart, but it is incomplete. The final paragraph cuts off mid-sentence, leaving the data for Melbourne and Sydney unstated. While the overview identifies some trends, the lack of completion prevents a full summary of the data. The comparison between cities is attempted, but the incomplete nature of the report means that not all parts of the task are addressed. To improve, ensure that all data categories are fully described and that the response reaches a logical conclusion.
Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.0
The response is organized into paragraphs, but the flow is disrupted by the incomplete ending. Cohesive devices such as 'In contrast', 'Turning to', and 'However' are used to link ideas, but the repetition of phrases like 'went to a cafe for' suggests a limited range of cohesive tools. The abrupt ending significantly impacts the overall coherence, as the reader is left without a finished summary or a clear final point. Paragraphing is present, but the internal structure of the final paragraph is broken.
Lexical Resource — Band 5.0
The vocabulary is generally adequate for the task, using terms like 'proportion', 'constituted', and 'individuals'. However, there are several spelling errors, such as 'survery', 'ceties', 'Syndey', and 'ecaxtly'. These errors are noticeable and detract from the professional tone required for an academic report. The range of vocabulary is somewhat limited and repetitive, relying on basic structures to describe the data. To reach a higher band, focus on accurate spelling and incorporating a wider variety of reporting verbs and nouns.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0
The response contains a mix of simple and some complex sentence structures, but accuracy is inconsistent. There are frequent grammatical errors, such as 'the percentage of individuals went to a cafe... were the highest' (should be 'who went' and 'was'), and 'people that bought fresh coffee were represente' (should be 'represented'). The repetition of 'went to a cafe for' also indicates a lack of grammatical flexibility. Punctuation and subject-verb agreement issues are persistent throughout the text, which occasionally makes the meaning difficult to follow.
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.
