The bar chart gives information about the number of car journeys into the city centre made by residents and non-residents.
Sample Response
The graph shows the number of car journeys into the city centre made by residents and non-residents over a ten year period. In 1996 an average of just under 10,000 journeys per day were being made by residents, while approximately half that number were made by non-residents. Over the subsequent three years, resident journeys remained reasonably stable, while non-resident journeys increased each year, exceeding 8,000 per day in 1999. In early 2000, parking meters were introduced into the city centre, and this had the effect of virtually halving resident traffic, although non-resident traffic decreased only slightly. By the end of 2002, the number of resident journeys had not altered significantly, but non-resident journeys had risen to their 1999 level. At this point, Westgate Street and Park Lane were pedestrianised. This resulted in a dramatic decline in non-resident traffic, and a slight decrease in resident traffic. From this point onward, resident traffic remained more or less at the same level, while non-resident traffic resumed its upward trend, reaching nearly 5,000 journeys per day in 2005.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Identify the chart type Original: The graph Suggested revision: The bar chart Why it matters: Naming the visual precisely makes the introduction more accurate.
- 2. Hyphenate the modifier Original: ten year period Suggested revision: ten-year period Why it matters: A compound adjective before a noun requires a hyphen.
- 3. Clarify the comparison Original: approximately half that number Suggested revision: approximately half as many Why it matters: Half as many agrees naturally with the plural journeys being compared.
- 4. Avoid unsupported causation Original: and this had the effect of virtually halving resident traffic Suggested revision: after which resident traffic virtually halved Why it matters: The chart shows the timing of the change but does not establish causation.
- 5. Match the chart label Original: were pedestrianised Suggested revision: were closed to traffic Why it matters: The visual states that these streets were closed to traffic, not specifically pedestrianised.
- 6. Compare the falls accurately Original: slight Suggested revision: smaller Why it matters: Resident journeys fell by roughly one-fifth, so smaller is more accurate than slight.
- 7. Sentence rewrite Original: By the end of 2002, the number of resident journeys had not altered significantly, but non-resident journeys had risen to their 1999 level. Suggested revision: Between 2000 and 2002, resident journeys stayed close to 5,000 per day, while non-resident journeys recovered to just over 8,000. Why it matters: This rewrite gives a clearer reference period and reports both levels more precisely.
- 8. Add a clear overview Suggested revision: Add an overview highlighting the initial convergence of the two series and the sharp falls following the two traffic measures. Why it matters: The response provides detailed chronology but no distinct summary of the main patterns.
- 9. Divide the report Suggested revision: Separate the introduction and overview from the chronological detail, then use a second detail paragraph for the period after 2000. Why it matters: The entire report is currently presented as one paragraph, which weakens its structural clarity.
Suggested Rewrites
- The graph The bar chart
- ten year period ten-year period
- approximately half that number approximately half as many
- and this had the effect of virtually halving resident traffic after which resident traffic virtually halved
- were pedestrianised were closed to traffic
- slight smaller
Why this response received Band 8.0
The response gives an accurate, highly controlled chronological account of both groups and connects the two traffic interventions clearly to the subsequent changes. Its main limitation is the absence of a distinct overview and paragraph structure, which makes the account read as one continuous sequence. Add an opening overview of the contrasting patterns, then group details around the two interventions.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Achievement
The key figures, contrasting movements, and effects of both traffic measures are selected and reported accurately.
Add a concise overview stating that resident journeys fell overall while non-resident journeys fluctuated sharply around the two interventions.
Coherence and Cohesion
Chronological progression and referencing are clear, but presenting the entire report as one paragraph weakens the structural hierarchy.
Separate the initial period, the parking-meter period, and the post-pedestrianisation period into purposeful paragraphs.
Lexical Resource
Vocabulary is precise and flexible, with natural use of terms for stability, change, and degree.
Maintain this precision while adding a brief overview that uses broader trend language rather than repeating detailed figures.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Complex clauses, comparisons, and time relationships are handled accurately and naturally throughout.
Preserve the strong control while varying a few repeated 'while' structures to make the syntax even more flexible.
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 bar chart gives information about the number of car journeys into the city centre made by residents and non-residents.
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.