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 lists the number and proportion of poverty-stricken families from various types of Australian households in 1999. In general, more than 1.83 million Australian households were impoverished and elder Australians were more economically affluent than other family types. Looking at the detail, 'sole parents', 'singles with no children' and 'couples with children' were listed as the high majority of poor family types. They accounted for 21%, 19%, and 12% poor family types respectively in their category in 1999. Almost one million couples with children were poverty-stricken family types, the highest, and single Australian had a similar condition in this year. On the other hand, 'aged couple', 'single aged person', and 'couple with no children' had a low proportion of poverty accounting for 4%, 6% and 7% poor family types respectively in their family category. Interestingly, couples without children were more economically stable than their counterparts with children.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Correct the unit Original: poverty-stricken families Suggested revision: people living in poverty Why it matters: The table counts people within household types, not families.
- 2. Use concise phrasing Original: various types of Australian households Suggested revision: different Australian household types Why it matters: This is a more natural and concise description of the categories.
- 3. Correct total measure Original: 1.83 million Australian households Suggested revision: 1.837 million Australians Why it matters: The total represents people living in poverty, not households.
- 4. Use correct adjective Original: elder Suggested revision: older Why it matters: “Older” is the natural adjective for people in this context.
- 5. Avoid unsupported inference Original: more economically affluent Suggested revision: less likely to live in poverty Why it matters: The table shows poverty rates rather than overall affluence.
- 6. Fix the expression Original: detail Suggested revision: details Why it matters: The plural form is required when introducing several figures.
- 7. Clarify household type Original: 'sole parents' Suggested revision: sole-parent households Why it matters: The category refers to people in sole-parent households.
- 8. Match category wording Original: 'singles with no children' Suggested revision: single people without children Why it matters: This accurately names the single-without-children category.
- 9. Clarify the category Original: 'couples with children' Suggested revision: couple-with-children households Why it matters: The table groups people by household type.
- 10. Use ranking language Original: high majority Suggested revision: highest proportions Why it matters: “High majority” is not a natural expression for ranked percentages.
- 11. Fix percentage phrase Original: 21%, 19%, and 12% poor family types respectively in their category Suggested revision: 21%, 19%, and 12% of people in their respective household categories Why it matters: The percentages describe people within each household category.
- 12. Use natural measure Original: had a low proportion of poverty Suggested revision: had low poverty rates Why it matters: “Poverty rate” is the appropriate expression for these proportions.
Suggested Rewrites
- poverty-stricken families people living in poverty
- various types of Australian households different Australian household types
- 1.83 million Australian households 1.837 million Australians
- elder older
- more economically affluent less likely to live in poverty
- detail details
Why this response received Band 6.0
The response selects the highest and lowest poverty proportions effectively and uses several accurate comparisons across family types. Its main weakness is data precision: the 1.837 million total refers to people, not households, and the comment about a single Australian having a similar condition is unclear and unsupported. Prioritise accurate units and clearer count comparisons, while adding paragraphing to make the overview and details easier to follow.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Achievement
The main high and low proportions are reported accurately, but the response confuses people with households and gives limited, sometimes unclear treatment of the numerical counts.
State that 1.837 million people were affected and compare the proportions and counts separately without unsupported claims of similarity.
Coherence and Cohesion
Information follows a logical high-to-low sequence with helpful linking, but presenting the entire report as one paragraph weakens the distinction between overview and detail.
Separate the introduction and overview from two grouped detail paragraphs covering higher- and lower-poverty household types.
Lexical Resource
The vocabulary shows reasonable range, including terms such as “poverty-stricken” and “counterparts,” though several collocations are awkward or repetitive.
Replace phrases such as “high majority of poor family types” with precise expressions such as “the highest poverty rates” and vary references to categories carefully.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A mix of sentence forms conveys the main meaning, but agreement, article, and noun-phrase errors recur in descriptions of categories and percentages.
Review plural agreement and percentage structures, for example writing that categories “had rates of 21%, 19%, and 12% respectively.”
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.