Band 4.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 4.5 · Cambridge IELTS 18 · 2026-09-15

IELTS Writing Task 1 question

The graph below shows the average monthly change in the prices of three metals during 2014.

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

Average monthly change in prices of copper, nickel and zinc (2014)

Student answer (Band 4.5)

This graph illustrate the variation in prices of different metals during 2014. Price of metal constanty changes from month january to decembr showing constant variation. Furthermore, price of copper decreases by half of year but thengradally rise and remain constant for three to four months however it shows alteration and price rises to some extent yet remain lower than the price in starting of year.

Price of nickel undergoes alot of varation and it's price falls at a sudden shocking rate but then remained same in between few months nevertless it again faces and falss at negative rate but it again reaces approximately to price of copper at the and of year.

First ever metal among all of three whose price become increases is nickel. Although its's price decreases gradually bu it does not show variation at high rate and in end of year its price remain high than copper and nickel.

AI examiner evaluation

CriterionBand
Task Achievement / Task Response5.0
Coherence and Cohesion5.0
Lexical Resource4.0
Grammatical Range and Accuracy4.0
Overall4.5

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.0

The response makes an attempt to summarise the graph showing the average monthly price changes for copper, nickel, and zinc in 2014, but it falls short of a fully developed overview and accurate reporting of the data. While the student mentions some general fluctuations (e.g., 'price of nickel undergoes a lot of variation'), the descriptions of specific trends are vague and contain inaccurate readings of the chart, such as claiming nickel's price ends up higher than copper and zinc. There is no clear, cohesive overall trend presented for the year as a whole. According to the descriptors, the task is addressed only partially, warranting a band score of 5.0.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.0

The essay is divided into three paragraphs, which shows an attempt at structural organisation. However, progression is weak and ideas are often disjointed or difficult to follow due to poor logical flow. Cohesive devices are used awkwardly or inaccurately, such as the abrupt transitions ('Furthermore', 'nevertless'), and referencing is occasionally unclear. Paragraphing is present, but the internal cohesion within paragraphs is faulty. Overall, the organisation demonstrates characteristics of Band 5, as there is no clear overall progression and cohesive devices are inadequate.

Lexical Resource — Band 4.0

The vocabulary used is very basic and repetitive, with numerous spelling and word-choice errors that impede communication. Examples of errors include 'constanty', 'decembr', 'thengradally', 'nevertless', and 'falss'. The student attempts some less common terms like 'variation', 'alteration', and 'gradually', but they are marred by inaccurate spelling and inappropriate collocation. The range is limited and minimally adequate for conveying simple ideas, but frequent noticeable errors align this output with Band 4.0.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 4.0

The student attempts a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, but control over grammar and punctuation is weak. There are frequent errors in verb tense, agreement, and sentence construction, such as 'This graph illustrate', 'Price of metal constanty changes', and 'whose price become increases'. Punctuation is also problematic, with run-on sentences lacking appropriate commas or conjunctions. Because errors are frequent and often cause difficulty for the reader, the grammatical performance fits the Band 4.0 descriptors.

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.