The table below shows the proportion of different categories of families living in poverty in Australia in 1999.
Sample Response
The table illustrates the percentage of various types of families who were living in poverty in Australia in the year 1999.
The sole parent had the highest percentage of share among all types, i.e., 21%, and the population of them is 232,000, followed by 19% who were single with no children. Couples with children had a 12% share, but their population in terms of numbers was highest among all types. Further single aged person, aged couple and couple with no children had almost equal percentages, but the population of couples with no children had around four times more population than a single aged person and aged couple.
Overall, 1,837,000 people were living in poverty among the whole population of Australia. Out of them, couples with children had the highest population in terms of numbers, but in terms of sole share, the parent had the highest one.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Remove redundant wording Original: percentage of share Suggested revision: percentage Why it matters: ‘Percentage’ and ‘share’ duplicate the same meaning here.
- 2. Fix pronoun and tense Original: the population of them is Suggested revision: their number was Why it matters: A possessive determiner and past tense make the reference grammatical and consistent.
- 3. Clarify second category Original: followed by 19% who were single with no children Suggested revision: while 19% of single people without children lived in poverty Why it matters: The original makes a percentage, rather than a family category, the antecedent of ‘who’.
- 4. Use concise measure Original: their population in terms of numbers was highest Suggested revision: their number in poverty was the highest Why it matters: This removes redundant wording while preserving the numerical comparison.
- 5. Add clear transition Original: Further single aged person Suggested revision: Furthermore, single aged people Why it matters: An adverbial transition needs the correct form and punctuation, followed by a plural category.
- 6. Use plural categories Original: aged couple and couple with no children Suggested revision: aged couples and couples with no children Why it matters: The response is referring to household categories in general, so plural forms are needed.
- 7. Fix count comparison Original: four times more population than Suggested revision: about four times as many people as Why it matters: Countable people require the ‘times as many ... as’ comparative structure.
- 8. Clarify compared groups Original: a single aged person and aged couple Suggested revision: single aged people or aged couples Why it matters: Plural category labels and ‘or’ correctly express the two separate comparisons.
- 9. Name category precisely Original: in terms of sole share, the parent Suggested revision: in proportional terms, sole-parent households Why it matters: The original phrase is unclear and does not accurately name the household category.
- 10. Use household label Original: The sole parent Suggested revision: Sole-parent households Why it matters: The plural compound form accurately names the household category shown in the table.
- 11. State value directly Original: i.e., 21% Suggested revision: at 21% Why it matters: ‘At’ links the category directly to its reported rate without an unnecessary abbreviation.
- 12. Name the measure Original: had a 12% share Suggested revision: had a poverty rate of 12% Why it matters: The replacement makes clear that 12% is the proportion living in poverty.
Suggested Rewrites
- percentage of share percentage
- the population of them is their number was
- followed by 19% who were single with no children while 19% of single people without children lived in poverty
- their population in terms of numbers was highest their number in poverty was the highest
- Further single aged person Furthermore, single aged people
- aged couple and couple with no children aged couples and couples with no children
Why this response received Band 6.0
The response accurately identifies the two most important contrasts: sole-parent households had the highest poverty proportion, while couples with children represented the largest number of people. Its main limitation is thin supporting coverage, with several categories grouped loosely and few exact figures supplied. The best improvement is to add selective, accurate comparisons for the aged and childless household groups while refining awkward phrasing.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Achievement
The key overall patterns are accurate and relevant, but several household categories receive limited numerical support.
Include the overall 11% figure and selected figures for the aged and childless groups to substantiate the comparisons.
Coherence and Cohesion
The response progresses coherently from an introduction through details to an overview, despite some cumbersome referencing and repetition.
Place the overview before the detailed figures and group categories through clearer comparative sentences.
Lexical Resource
Vocabulary is sufficient for the task, but awkward collocations such as percentage of share and more population recur.
Use precise expressions such as poverty rate, number of people, and four times as many people.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A mix of simple and complex sentences communicates the comparisons clearly, although agreement, article, and phrasing errors remain noticeable.
Check subject-verb agreement and revise long sentences so each comparison has a clear grammatical subject.
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.