The graph below shows waste recycling rates in the U.S. from 1960 to 2011.
This response is estimated at Band 7.0. Can you write a better one?
Write yours and get clear feedback on all four criteria.
- Closest to official scores
- What to fix on each criterion
- Feedback in about 20 seconds · free
Sample Response
The line graph showselucidates information pertaining to the total waste recovery (measured in millions of tonsunits in a million tons) and the recycling percentage in the USand percentage of recycling in the US between 1960 and 2011.
Overall, it can be asserted that the total waste recovery was at its highest levelat its zenith in 2011, while in 1960, it was at its lowest levelit was minuscule. Also, the percentage recycling trend broadly followed the trend in total waste recoverythe recycling percentage pattern was the same as the total waste recovery, and both measurescategories showed an upward trend.
DeleteEssentially, in 1960 and 1965, the total waste recovery figures in the US werethe total waste recovery in the us was 5.6 and 6.5 million tons, and the recycling percentages werethe percentage of recycling was 6.4% and 6.2%, respectively. Furthermore, in 1970 the total waste recovery was 8 million tons which slightly increased by 1.3 million tons in 1975, whereas the recycling percentage was 6.6%, then rose slightly to 7.3% in 1975. Similarly, in 1980 and 1985, total recovery increasedthe total recovery augmented from 14.5 to 16.7 million tonsfrom 14.5 to 16.7, and the recycling percentage increased from 9.6 % to 10.1%, respectively.
Also, there was substantial growth in total waste recovery by 33.2, 55.8 and 69.5 million tons; however, the data for parentage recycling was 16%, 25.7% and 28.5%, respectively. Moreover, the total waste recovery rose substantiallytotal waste recovery proliferated prodigiously to 79.8 million tons in 2005 and 86.9 million tons in 2011, and the recycling percentage increased graduallyrecycling percentage soared slowly to 31.4%in 2005 and 34.7% in 2011.
Why this response received Band 7.0
The response accurately reports almost every plotted value and provides a clear overall upward trend, supported by logically sequenced paragraphs. Its main limitation is that it lists data more than it synthesises change, while several inflated or inaccurate choices such as 'proliferated prodigiously' and 'parentage recycling' reduce precision. Prioritise grouping the early and rapid-growth periods and using neutral, exact trend vocabulary.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Achievement
The overview identifies the dominant upward movement and the report includes nearly all values accurately, though key phases of change are insufficiently synthesised.
Highlight the slow growth before 1985 and the much steeper rises thereafter instead of mainly listing consecutive values.
Coherence and Cohesion
The report follows a clear chronological progression, but repetitive linking and dense sequences of figures make the development somewhat mechanical.
Group years by meaningful trend phases and use fewer routine connectors such as 'Furthermore', 'Similarly', and 'Moreover'.
Lexical Resource
The response demonstrates broad vocabulary, but several inflated, misspelled, or inaccurate choices weaken naturalness and precision.
Prefer neutral chart language such as 'rose sharply' and correct inaccurate forms such as 'parentage recycling'.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Complex sentences are generally controlled and meaning remains clear, despite occasional problems with articles, punctuation, capitalization, and phrasing.
Proofread sentence boundaries, spacing around percentages, and noun phrases so accurate structures remain consistently polished.