User-written IELTS example
Writing Academic Task 1 Band 9.0 Example
Original task prompt, user essay, band score, and related examples in the same report workspace.
Illustrative target band for this original model answer.
Plan your answer
Try your own response before reading the samples.
Ideas to explore
- Compare budget shares rather than claim absolute spending changed.
- Identify courses as the growing allocation and administration as stable.
- Keep the description within the information supplied by the task.
Suggested structure
- Introduce what the charts measure.
- Summarise the reallocation.
- Describe the earlier distribution.
- Compare the later shares.
Useful vocabulary & examples
- percentage points
- the absolute difference between two percentages
A change from 40% to 35% is a fall of five percentage points.
- remain unchanged
- stay at the same value or position
The administration share remained unchanged.
- be replaced by
- be removed and have another feature put in the same place
The car park was replaced by a playground.
Answer analysis
Task Achievement
Selects the main redistribution and explicitly avoids claiming absolute expenditure changes from percentages alone.
Language
Uses “share”, “allocation” and “percentage points” consistently and accurately.
Task Prompt
User Essay Analysis
Review the public answer with report-style highlights.
The figures illustrate the distribution of a community centre’s budget among four categories in 2015 and 2025.
Overall, the allocation shifted towards courses and away from staff and facilities. Staff received the largest share in 2015, but by 2025 courses and staff accounted for equal proportions. Administration’s share remained unchanged.
In the earlier year, staff costs made up 40% of the budget, followed by facilities at 30%. Courses received half as much as staff, at 20%, while administration accounted for the remaining 10%. Together, staff and facilities represented 70% of all spending.
By 2025, the proportion devoted to courses had risen by 15 percentage points to 35%, matching the allocation for staff, which had declined by five points. Facilities experienced a larger reduction of ten points, leaving them with 20% of the budget. Administration still received 10%. The combined share assigned to staff and facilities consequently fell to 55%, with the entire reduction redistributed to courses. The charts describe relative allocations only; they do not indicate whether the centre’s total budget increased or decreased.
