Band 4.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 4.0 · Cambridge IELTS 18 · 2026-09-18

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 4.0)

The line graph demonstrates the avarage monthly change in prices of copper, nickel and zinc during 2014 entire year.

Overall , these three matels ' prices were fluctuating during this year. However in january month the gaps which are change in price compared with previous month were high although in december month the price gaps reached 1-2 % deferences.

Nickel experinced a significant decrease between first half a year . But in july month the price increased on 2%. that price relatively stayed at until september. however in october it went down and in december it wa up to 3%.

Furthurmore, zinc experienced a plus price range and up to 3% . zinc reached the lowest price in june like nickel. however last six months it followed nickel's path and finally it stayed aproxximately 2 %. copper was always fluctuating than other matels. but it stayed finally in same price between

AI examiner evaluation

CriterionBand
Task Achievement / Task Response4.5
Coherence and Cohesion4.0
Lexical Resource4.0
Grammatical Range and Accuracy4.0
Overall4.0

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 4.5

The response attempts to cover the main features of the line graph showing the monthly percentage change in prices for copper, nickel, and zinc in 2014. However, the data reporting is frequently vague, inaccurate, or confused. For instance, the student states that nickel went up to 3% in December when the chart shows it was around 1%, and the description of zinc contains inaccurate generalisations and unfinished thoughts (ending abruptly with 'stayed finally in same price between'). The overview is very weak, lacking a clear summary of the overall trends. While all three metals are mentioned, the lack of precision and incomplete data points pull this criterion down to a Band 4.5.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 4.0

The response is structured into short paragraphs, but the logical progression is severely disrupted by mechanical and faulty cohesion. Phrases such as 'However in january month the gaps which are change in price compared with previous month were high' are awkward and difficult to follow. Referencing is frequently unclear ('it followed nickel's path'), and the text lacks adequate cohesive devices to guide the reader smoothly through the comparisons. Paragraphing is attempted, but the final sentence is incomplete, breaking the flow entirely. This corresponds to Band 4.0.

Lexical Resource — Band 4.0

The vocabulary used is basic and repetitive, with noticeable spelling and word-choice errors throughout the text. Examples include 'avarage' (average), 'matels' (metals), 'experinced' (experienced), and 'Furthurmore' (Furthermore). The student also struggles with precise collocational phrasing, using terms like 'plus price range' and 'price gaps'. While the basic topic vocabulary is present, frequent errors and limited control over less common lexical items restrict the score to a Band 4.0.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 4.0

The response displays a very limited range of grammatical structures. Simple sentences dominate, and attempts at complex structures are frequently faulty or ungrammatical, such as 'the gaps which are change in price compared with previous month were high'. There are frequent errors in tense usage, prepositions, and sentence boundaries, culminating in an incomplete sentence at the very end of the response ('but it stayed finally in same price between'). These errors often cause difficulty for the reader and reflect 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.