The table below shows the proportion of different categories of families living in poverty in Australia in 1999.
Sample Response
The table shows a breakdown of different types of families who were living in poverty in Australia in 1999.
It is noticeable that 11% of people were living in poverty. However, this figure was considerably high among the sole parents and single people who did not have children and those percentages were 21% and 19% respectively. Moreover, this proportion was significantly prominent among the couples who had children compared with the family structures consisted with couples who did not have children. In fact, the proportion of couples with children living in poverty was 5% more than that in the family types consisted only with couples. In contrast, this trend favoured aged people. However, this figure was slightly more (2%) among the single aged people than that in the family category of aged couples.
In conclusion, it is clear that the proportion of people living in poverty varied according to their family structures.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Use household reference Original: types of families who were living in poverty Suggested revision: household types whose members were living in poverty Why it matters: Whose members correctly refers to the people within each household category.
- 2. Use natural emphasis Original: considerably Suggested revision: particularly Why it matters: Particularly high describes large proportions naturally without requiring an explicit comparison.
- 3. Name household type Original: among the sole parents Suggested revision: among sole-parent households Why it matters: The table categorises households rather than individual parents.
- 4. Use precise reference Original: those percentages Suggested revision: the corresponding proportions Why it matters: This phrase links the two figures clearly to the two categories in the same order.
- 5. Use percentage points Original: 5% more than Suggested revision: five percentage points higher than Why it matters: The difference between 12% and 7% is five percentage points, not a five-percent increase.
- 6. Clarify point difference Original: slightly more (2%) Suggested revision: two percentage points higher Why it matters: The figures are 6% and 4%, so their absolute gap is two percentage points.
- 7. Name table measure Original: a breakdown of Suggested revision: the proportions for Why it matters: The task focuses on the proportion reported for each household category.
- 8. Use overview marker Original: It is noticeable that Suggested revision: Overall, Why it matters: This marker signals that the all-households figure begins the summary of the main patterns.
- 9. Use concise category Original: single people who did not have children Suggested revision: single adults without children Why it matters: This concise wording matches the meaning of the table category.
- 10. Use comparative wording Original: significantly prominent Suggested revision: notably higher Why it matters: The sentence compares two household groups, so higher is more precise than prominent.
- 11. Correct participle phrase Original: family types consisted only with couples Suggested revision: households consisting only of couples Why it matters: Consisting of is the correct construction for describing household composition.
- 12. Use category preposition Original: among the single aged people Suggested revision: for single aged people Why it matters: For more naturally introduces the proportion assigned to a table category.
Suggested Rewrites
- types of families who were living in poverty household types whose members were living in poverty
- considerably particularly
- among the sole parents among sole-parent households
- those percentages the corresponding proportions
- 5% more than five percentage points higher than
- slightly more (2%) two percentage points higher
Why this response received Band 6.0
The response selects the overall poverty figure and makes useful comparisons among higher-risk, couple, and aged households, so its coverage is purposeful and concise. The main weakness is that the overview merely says proportions varied and several comparisons give only differences rather than the actual table values; prioritise a sharper highest-versus-lowest overview and support each comparison with precise percentages.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Achievement
Relevant categories and accurate differences are selected, but the overview is vague and several important percentages are not stated directly.
Highlight sole parents and singles without children as the highest groups and aged couples as the lowest, then give the exact figures for each comparison.
Coherence and Cohesion
The report progresses from an introduction through grouped comparisons to a conclusion, although repeated contrast markers and some vague references make cohesion mechanical.
Organise the details explicitly into high-, middle-, and low-poverty groups and use contrast markers only where the relationship genuinely changes.
Lexical Resource
The response shows an adequate range for comparison, but collocations such as “significantly prominent,” “consisted with,” and “trend favoured” are inaccurate.
Prefer precise phrases such as households consisting of couples, a higher proportion, and the lowest incidence of poverty.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Complex sentences are attempted and usually understandable, but recurring errors in relative structures, prepositions, comparison forms, and agreement reduce accuracy.
Use controlled comparison patterns such as “X was five percentage points higher than Y” and proofread noun phrases and prepositions.
Write this task while it is fresh
Try the same task now. It helps you remember the feedback and write better next time.
IELTS Academic Writing Task 1
The table below shows the proportion of different categories of families living in poverty in Australia in 1999.
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.