The graph below shows the consumption of fish and some different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004. Fish and Meat consumption
Sample Response
The line graph compares the amount of fish, chicken, beef and lamb people in a European country consumed weekly per person over a period of 25 years. From 1979 to 2004, the consumption of fish in this European country had always been far less than meat with a steady amount of approximately 50 grammes per week per person. As for the trends of meat consumption, the chicken had risen to become the most eaten meat in the year of 2004 compared with the gradual decrease of beef and lamb. Despite a small spike appeared in 1984 for beef consumption, the line illustrates a general downward trend, making it the second most eaten meat in the year of 2004 whereas beef was the most consumed meat per week dropped from around 225 grams to 100 grams per person, showing a decrease of 125 grams for these 25 years. People in this European country ate roughly 150 grammes of chicken or lamb per week /per person in 1979. However, 25 years after 1979, the consumption of chicken rose significantly to around 250 grammes per week while the amount of lamb consumed dropped to a little higher than 50 grammes weekly. The opposite trend between chicken and lamb consumption eventually made a gap of 100 grammes in 2004.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Add relative marker Original: fish, chicken, beef and lamb people Suggested revision: fish, chicken, beef, and lamb that people Why it matters: The relative marker ‘that’ is needed to connect the foods with what people consumed.
- 2. Natural unit order Original: consumed weekly per person Suggested revision: consumed per person each week Why it matters: This word order expresses the weekly per-person measure more naturally.
- 3. Use exact date range Original: over a period of 25 years Suggested revision: from 1979 to 2004 Why it matters: The precise dates are more informative than the duration alone.
- 4. Concise topic transition Original: As for the trends of meat consumption Suggested revision: Regarding meat consumption Why it matters: The shorter transition introduces the category clearly.
- 5. Remove unnecessary article Original: the chicken Suggested revision: chicken Why it matters: The food category is used generally and does not take ‘the’.
- 6. Use simple past Original: had risen Suggested revision: rose Why it matters: The stated time period calls for the simple past rather than the past perfect.
- 7. Use formal consumption term Original: become the most eaten meat in the year of 2004 Suggested revision: become the most widely consumed meat in 2004 Why it matters: ‘Widely consumed’ and the shorter year phrase suit a formal data report.
- 8. Use parallel trend clause Original: compared with the gradual decrease of beef and lamb Suggested revision: while beef and lamb consumption gradually decreased Why it matters: A full contrasting clause makes the three trends grammatically parallel.
- 9. Use concise reporting verb Original: People in this European country ate Suggested revision: People consumed Why it matters: ‘Consumed’ is concise and consistent with the graph’s subject.
- 10. Include both series Original: or Suggested revision: and Why it matters: Both chicken and lamb were close to 150 grams in 1979.
- 11. Fix unit formatting Original: per week /per person Suggested revision: per person per week Why it matters: The slash and spacing are incorrect, and the standard unit order is clearer.
- 12. Use direct year reference Original: 25 years after 1979 Suggested revision: by 2004 Why it matters: Naming the endpoint directly makes the time comparison easier to follow.
Suggested Rewrites
- fish, chicken, beef and lamb people fish, chicken, beef, and lamb that people
- consumed weekly per person consumed per person each week
- over a period of 25 years from 1979 to 2004
- As for the trends of meat consumption Regarding meat consumption
- the chicken chicken
- had risen rose
Why this response received Band 6.5
The response gives a strong overview of the contrasting trends, correctly showing chicken becoming dominant while beef and lamb declined and fish remained lowest. Its main limitation is precision: beef did not spike in 1984, and the 2004 gap between chicken and lamb was about 180 grams rather than 100. The priority is to verify turning points and calculated differences while keeping the effective trend comparisons.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Detailed feedback by IELTS writing criterion after the annotated essay.
Task Achievement
All four series and their principal trends are covered with relevant endpoint data, although the beef turning point and final chicken-lamb gap are inaccurate.
Report beef's fall to about 170 grams in 1984 before its slight recovery, and calculate the 2004 gap from 250 and 70 grams.
Coherence and Cohesion
The response moves logically from overall patterns to individual series, but the single paragraph and an overloaded beef sentence reduce clarity.
Separate the overview from the details and split the beef discussion into shorter sentences with one comparison in each.
Lexical Resource
A good range of trend vocabulary is used, though combinations such as 'a spike appeared,' 'most eaten meat,' and 'made a gap' are occasionally awkward.
Prefer precise forms such as 'rose slightly,' 'most widely consumed meat,' and 'the gap widened to.'
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Varied structures are attempted and meaning is generally clear, but tense choice, articles, clause construction, and comparative phrasing are inconsistently controlled.
Avoid incomplete concessive patterns and tangled clauses by writing 'Despite a slight recovery, beef consumption declined overall' as a complete structure.
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 graph below shows the consumption of fish and some different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004. Fish and Meat consumption
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.