The table below shows the proportion of different categories of families living in poverty in Australia in 1999. Family Type Proportion of people from each household type living in poverty Single aged person Aged couple Single, no children Couple, no children Sole parent Couple with children All households 6% (54,000) 4% (48,000) 19% (359,000) 7% (211,000) 21% (232,000) 12% (933,000) 11% (1, 837, 000)
Sample Response
The table data presents information about the types of Australian families who were poverty-stricken in 1999. It also shows the number and proportion of such impoverished families for the same year. Overall, more than 1.83 million Australian families were poor in 1999 and it comprised just over one-tenth of the total Australian households. Furthermore, poverty was more prevalent among soles parents and singles without any children. As the data suggest, one out of five sole parents in Australia was destitute and it was the highest percentage of poverty among the given family types in 1999. The higher number of poor family, however, were the couples with children accounting for approximately one million households. 7% couples without children, on the other hand, were not affluent. 19% Single Australians without any child were needy while this rate among the elder citizens was fewer - 6% single ages person and 4% aged couple were poor and the total number of such families were 54,000 and 48,000 respectively.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Fix subject phrase Original: The table data presents Suggested revision: The table presents Why it matters: Table already denotes the data source, so data is redundant and disrupts the subject phrase.
- 2. Name categories accurately Original: types of Australian families Suggested revision: types of Australian households Why it matters: The table groups people by household type rather than by distinct family types.
- 3. Identify measured people Original: the number and proportion of such impoverished families Suggested revision: the numbers and proportions of people living in poverty within each household type Why it matters: Both the percentages and counts refer to people, not families.
- 4. Correct household term Original: soles parents Suggested revision: people in sole-parent households Why it matters: Sole-parent is the correct compound label, and the percentages represent people in those households.
- 5. Match household category Original: singles without any children Suggested revision: people in single-person households without children Why it matters: This wording accurately identifies the table's single, no children category as a household type.
- 6. Use superlative form Original: The higher number Suggested revision: The highest number Why it matters: The sentence identifies the largest count among all categories, so a superlative is required.
- 7. Use correct plural concept Original: poor family Suggested revision: people living in poverty Why it matters: The table counts people, and this phrase also resolves the singular noun error.
- 8. Fix agreement and category Original: were the couples with children Suggested revision: was found among people in couples-with-children households Why it matters: The singular subject number requires was, and the table measures people within this household type.
- 9. Correct count and unit Original: approximately one million households Suggested revision: 933,000 people Why it matters: The table gives 933,000 people, not approximately one million households, for this category.
- 10. Add category preposition Original: 7% couples without children Suggested revision: Seven per cent of people in couples-without-children households Why it matters: The percentage applies to people within that household category and requires of.
- 11. State poverty measure Original: not affluent Suggested revision: living in poverty Why it matters: Not affluent is broader than, and not equivalent to, the table's poverty measure.
- 12. Fix category wording Original: 19% Single Australians without any child Suggested revision: Nineteen per cent of people in single-person households without children Why it matters: The revision supplies the required preposition, removes incorrect capitalization, and names the household category accurately.
Suggested Rewrites
- The table data presents The table presents
- types of Australian families types of Australian households
- the number and proportion of such impoverished families the numbers and proportions of people living in poverty within each household type
- soles parents people in sole-parent households
- singles without any children people in single-person households without children
- The higher number The highest number
Why this response received Band 6.5
The response selects nearly all categories, highlights the highest proportions, and uses the figures to make relevant comparisons. Its main limitation is the repeated misidentification of the counts as families or households when the table reports people, alongside several agreement and noun-form errors. The highest priority is to preserve the table's units accurately and express comparisons in simpler, grammatically secure sentences.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Detailed feedback by IELTS writing criterion after the annotated essay.
Task Achievement
The response identifies the main proportional patterns and most figures, but repeatedly treats numbers of people as numbers of families or households.
State explicitly that the figures count people, and include the 12% rate for couples with children when discussing their largest absolute total.
Coherence and Cohesion
Information progresses logically from an overview to the highest, middle, and lowest categories, although contrast markers are occasionally imprecise.
Divide the response into an overview and a detail paragraph, using 'whereas' or 'by contrast' only for genuinely paired comparisons.
Lexical Resource
The vocabulary for poverty and comparison is varied, but overextended synonym use and errors such as 'soles parents' and 'single ages person' reduce precision.
Prefer the table's exact category labels and vary comparison verbs rather than repeatedly replacing the central term 'poverty'.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Complex sentences are attempted successfully enough for meaning to remain clear, but agreement, articles, plurals, and comparative forms are frequently inaccurate.
Check noun number and verb agreement in every data statement, especially after percentages, collective categories, and phrases such as 'the number of'.
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. Family Type Proportion of people from each household type living in poverty Single aged person Aged couple Single, no children Couple, no children Sole parent Couple with children All households 6% (54,000) 4% (48,000) 19% (359,000) 7% (211,000) 21% (232,000) 12% (933,000) 11% (1, 837, 000)
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.