The graph below shows waste recycling rates in the U.S. from 1960 to 2011.
Sample Response
The line chart outlines how much waste was recovered and recycled in the US between 1960 and 2011. The garbage recovery is presented in million tons while the recycling is presented in percentages.
Generally speaking, both waste recovery and recycling in the US after 1985 increased remarkably despite the fact that a big proportion of litter remained unrecycled.
As the data suggests, 5.6 million tons of rubbish was recovered in the USA in 1960 and just 6.4% was recycled this year. Recycling in 1965 slightly declined but increased in 1970 when 6.6% of waste recycling took place out of 8 tons. In 1980, more than 14 million tons of garbage were collected and almost 10% was recycled. The recycling rate further developed by almost 2% after 5 years. After a decade, 16% of total waste was recycled and this ratio after that increased steadily and sharply and so did the waste recovery.
Almost one-third of the surplus was recycled in 2005 when waste recovery was nearly 80 million tons, about 8 times higher than that of 25 years earlier. A thorough observation indicates that a great percentage of scrap in the US is not recycled during this time. For instance, out of 80 million tons, only about 32% of waste recycling figure in the US shows that another 50 million tons were not recycled. Finally, in 2011, more than one-third of rubbish was recycled which accounted for around 30 million tons of waste produced in the USA while the remaining 60 million tons were not recycled.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Use standard chart verb Original: outlines Suggested revision: shows Why it matters: Shows is the most direct verb for introducing the information in a chart.
- 2. Use chart terminology Original: The garbage recovery Suggested revision: Total waste recovery Why it matters: This wording matches the measure named in the graph and avoids the informal garbage.
- 3. Name percentage measure Original: the recycling is presented in percentages Suggested revision: the recycling rate is presented as a percentage Why it matters: The graph presents a rate, and as a percentage is the correct construction.
- 4. Use formal waste phrase Original: a big proportion of litter Suggested revision: a large proportion of waste Why it matters: Large proportion and waste are the appropriate formal choices for this report.
- 5. Fix quantity agreement Original: was Suggested revision: were Why it matters: The plural head noun tons requires the plural verb were.
- 6. Use past reference Original: this Suggested revision: that Why it matters: That year refers back naturally to a completed year in the past.
- 7. Specify recycling rate Original: Recycling in 1965 Suggested revision: The recycling rate in 1965 Why it matters: The percentage rate, rather than recycling activity generally, is what declined.
- 8. Use passive percentage form Original: 6.6% of waste recycling took place Suggested revision: 6.6% of waste was recycled Why it matters: The passive construction correctly expresses the proportion of waste recycled.
- 9. Restore million-unit scale Original: out of 8 tons Suggested revision: out of 8 million tons Why it matters: The graph measures total waste recovery in millions of tons.
- 10. Report recovery, not collection Original: garbage were collected Suggested revision: waste was recovered Why it matters: The chart records recovered waste and does not show the amount collected.
- 11. Use trend verb Original: further developed Suggested revision: rose Why it matters: A recycling rate rises; developed is not a natural verb for numerical change.
- 12. Correct five-year change Original: by almost 2% after 5 years Suggested revision: by 0.5 percentage points over the next five years Why it matters: The rate increased from 9.6% in 1980 to 10.1% in 1985.
Suggested Rewrites
- outlines shows
- The garbage recovery Total waste recovery
- the recycling is presented in percentages the recycling rate is presented as a percentage
- a big proportion of litter a large proportion of waste
- was were
- this that
Why this response received Band 6.0
The report has a clear overview and a sensible chronological structure, and several early figures are reported accurately. Its main limitation is the interpretation of the later data: recovery tonnage is treated as total waste, leading to unsupported unrecycled amounts, while some years and changes are also misreported. Prioritise distinguishing the two plotted measures and avoid calculating quantities the graph does not directly support.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Achievement
The overview identifies the broad upward trends and early data are partly accurate, but later values are repeatedly misread and unsupported waste totals are calculated.
Treat recovery tonnage and recycling percentage as separate series, report their labelled values, and remove inferred unrecycled quantities.
Coherence and Cohesion
The response uses a logical introduction, overview, and chronological detail structure, though progression becomes confusing when later calculations are introduced.
Organise the details around key periods of change and give one clear comparison for each series without digressive calculations.
Lexical Resource
There is adequate range for describing trends and waste, but several collocations and measurement phrases are awkward or imprecise.
Use consistent terms such as ‘waste recovered’, ‘million tonnes’, and ‘recycling rate’ throughout the report.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A range of sentence forms is attempted and most meaning is recoverable, but agreement, reference, and clause-construction errors recur.
Simplify long sentences and ensure every percentage or quantity has a clear subject, unit, and grammatical relationship to the chart data.
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 waste recycling rates in the U.S. from 1960 to 2011.
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.