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 outlines the ratio and number of impoverished families in Australia in the year 1999. It is evident that more than one-tenth of Australian families, approximately 1.8 million in total, lived in poverty in 1999, and couples with children made the highest number of destitute families. According to the table data, only 6% aged singles and 4% aged couple lived in poverty in 1999. It is evident that elder Australians were economically stronger than their younger counterparts. Again, 19% singles without any child were not affluent and their total number was just over 0.35 million. Compared to that, only 7% couples with no children suffered from poverty. Furthermore, sole-parents who were poor in 1999 were 232,000 in number and their poverty ratio was 21%, the highest. Finally, 12% couple with children lived in the destitute situation in 1999 and their percentage was 12% and the total number was 933,000. This type of family had the largest number of poverty-stricken households, though, their percentage was lower than that of poor sole parents and singles with no children.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Use table terminology Original: ratio Suggested revision: proportion Why it matters: The table reports proportions rather than ratios.
- 2. Correct the unit Original: impoverished families Suggested revision: people living in poverty by household type Why it matters: The figures count people within household types, not families.
- 3. Add partitive structure Original: only 6% aged singles Suggested revision: only 6% of single aged persons Why it matters: A percentage of a group requires 'of' before the group noun.
- 4. Fix percentage phrase Original: 4% aged couple Suggested revision: 4% of people in aged couples Why it matters: The revision supplies the required 'of' phrase and accurately identifies the measured people.
- 5. Correct group phrase Original: 19% singles without any child Suggested revision: 19% of singles without children Why it matters: The percentage needs an 'of' phrase, and the plural 'children' is natural for this household category.
- 6. Add missing of Original: only 7% couples with no children Suggested revision: only 7% of couples with no children Why it matters: Use 'of' to connect the percentage to the household group.
- 7. Remove unnecessary hyphen Original: sole-parents Suggested revision: sole parents Why it matters: The standard noun phrase 'sole parents' is written without a hyphen.
- 8. Remove redundant noun Original: According to the table data Suggested revision: According to the table Why it matters: The word 'table' already makes clear that the information is data.
- 9. Show the contrast Original: Again Suggested revision: By contrast Why it matters: The sentence shifts from lower poverty among aged groups to a much higher figure for younger singles.
- 10. Match the table measure Original: were not affluent Suggested revision: lived in poverty Why it matters: The table identifies poverty status, which is more specific than a lack of affluence.
- 11. Report the exact figure Original: their total number was just over 0.35 million Suggested revision: their number was 359,000 Why it matters: The table provides the precise count of 359,000 for singles without children.
- 12. Use concise comparison Original: Compared to that Suggested revision: By comparison Why it matters: This directly signals the comparison with singles who had no children.
Suggested Rewrites
- ratio proportion
- impoverished families people living in poverty by household type
- only 6% aged singles only 6% of single aged persons
- 4% aged couple 4% of people in aged couples
- 19% singles without any child 19% of singles without children
- only 7% couples with no children only 7% of couples with no children
Why this response received Band 6.5
The response gives a clear overview of the highest and lowest poverty rates and includes every household category with generally accurate figures. Its main weakness is repeated misidentification of the table's figures as numbers of families or households rather than people, combined with awkward and repetitive phrasing. The priority is to describe the measurement unit precisely, then streamline comparisons so each statistic and its significance are stated once.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Achievement
The main patterns and all categories are covered accurately, but the response repeatedly treats counts of people as counts of families or households.
State explicitly that the percentages and numbers refer to people within each household type, then maintain that unit consistently.
Coherence and Cohesion
The report follows a sensible sequence from the overview through the categories, but one long paragraph and repetitive linking make progression less controlled.
Divide the details into meaningful groups, such as older households and younger or child-related households, and remove duplicated statements.
Lexical Resource
There is adequate range for describing poverty and comparison, although several expressions are unnatural or imprecise, including 'poverty ratio' and 'destitute situation'.
Prefer precise neutral phrases such as 'poverty rate', 'people living in poverty', and 'couples with children'.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Meaning remains clear through a mix of sentence forms, but agreement, article, number, and noun-form errors recur across the response.
Check plural agreement and countable forms carefully, especially constructions such as 'aged couples', 'sole parents', and '12% of couples'.
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.