The graph below shows the unemployment rates in the US and Japan between March 1993 and March 1999.
Sample Response
The diagram gives some statistical information about the unemployment scenario in Japan and the United States between 1993 and 1999. Generally speaking, these two countries showed a contrasting trend in their unemployment ratio between March, 93 and March, 99. In 1993, 2.5% Japanese could not find a suitable job which represents a 97.5% employment rate in this country. At that time, 7.0% of US citizens were unemployed. Over the time unemployment rate in Japan gradually increased while it actually decreased in the USA. After three years, March 1996 to be exact, unemployed Japanese increased by 1.5% and decreased by the same ratio in the USA. This pattern continues and in the Mid-98, the unemployment rates in these two countries intersected at exactly 4.5%. Next year, the USA managed to arrange jobs for more unemployed citizens and thus decreased this rate further while it went higher in Japan. Interestingly, the unemployment ratio in the USA dropped significantly while increased in Japan over the period. In 1999, just over 4% American's were jobless while more than 4.5% Japanese did not have a job.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Name the visual accurately Original: The diagram Suggested revision: The line graph Why it matters: The visual is a line graph rather than a general diagram.
- 2. Use the measured term Original: scenario Suggested revision: rates Why it matters: Rates precisely identifies the percentage measure shown.
- 3. Use the plural form Original: a contrasting trend Suggested revision: contrasting trends Why it matters: The two countries follow separate opposing trends, so the plural is required.
- 4. Use standard terminology Original: ratio Suggested revision: rates Why it matters: Unemployment rate is the standard term used by the graph.
- 5. Format the date Original: March, 93 Suggested revision: March 1993 Why it matters: The month and year take no comma, and the full year is clearer.
- 6. Format the end date Original: March, 99 Suggested revision: March 1999 Why it matters: The month and year should appear without a comma.
- 7. Add the required preposition Original: 2.5% Japanese Suggested revision: 2.5% of Japanese people Why it matters: A percentage referring to people requires of before the group.
- 8. Keep focus on unemployment Original: which represents a 97.5% employment rate in this country Suggested revision: at the start of the period Why it matters: The converted employment figure is not shown and distracts from the unemployment comparison.
- 9. Fix the time phrase Original: Over the time unemployment rate Suggested revision: Over time, the unemployment rate Why it matters: Over time takes no article and should be followed by a comma and a complete noun phrase.
- 10. Correct the change measure Original: unemployed Japanese increased by 1.5% Suggested revision: Japan's unemployment rate increased by about one percentage point Why it matters: The graph rises from about 2.5% to roughly 3.5%, and the rate rather than people increases.
- 11. Correct the US change Original: decreased by the same ratio in the USA Suggested revision: the US rate decreased by about 1.5 percentage points Why it matters: The US decline is larger than Japan's rise and should be expressed in percentage points.
- 12. Use a precise time marker Original: Next year Suggested revision: By March 1999 Why it matters: The graph's endpoint is March 1999, not an unspecified following year.
Suggested Rewrites
- The diagram The line graph
- scenario rates
- a contrasting trend contrasting trends
- ratio rates
- March, 93 March 1993
- March, 99 March 1999
Why this response received Band 6.5
The response clearly captures the contrasting overall trends and supports them with accurate starting and ending figures, so the main message is easy to understand. Its main limitation is imprecision in the middle of the period: the 1996 change in Japan is overstated, and the intersection timing and causal claim about US employment are not securely supported. The priority is to report approximate values and timings conservatively, without inventing causes.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Achievement
The contrasting directions and endpoint values are clearly presented, but some intermediate changes, timings, and causal interpretation are inaccurate or unsupported.
Check the 1996 figures and crossover point carefully, and describe only the unemployment rates rather than proposing reasons for them.
Coherence and Cohesion
The account follows a clear chronological path with effective comparisons, although presenting the entire response as one paragraph weakens information grouping.
Separate the overview from a detail paragraph and group the starting values, convergence, and final positions into distinct stages.
Lexical Resource
The response has a useful range of language for trends and comparisons, but awkward collocations such as “unemployment ratio” and “arrange jobs” reduce precision.
Prefer standard terms such as “unemployment rate,” “rose to,” “fell by,” and “the two figures converged.”
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Meaning remains clear through varied sentence forms, but recurring errors in articles, possessives, tense, clause subjects, and percentage constructions limit accuracy.
Use forms such as “2.5% of Japanese people,” “the rate rose,” and “just over 4% of Americans” consistently.
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 unemployment rates in the US and Japan between March 1993 and March 1999.
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.