The table shows the amount of total waste produced in million tonnes in six different countries in three years.
Sample Response
The table compares the waste production in six different countries in three different years. Overall, the US alone produced more waste in these years than the rest of the countries did in combination. According to the table data, Canada produced 20 million tonnes of litter which was exactly double than that of Ireland and Poland. The waste production in Japan was 15 million tonnes. Scotland produced the least amount of garbage which was only 3 million tonnes. These five countries together were responsible for producing 58 million tonnes of wastage which was almost half of the waste products in the USA. Next year the waste generation in the US increased to 150 million tonnes, almost a fifty percent increase, while Poland, Canada and Scotland managed to reduce it. The most significant improvement was in Poland in terms of waste production - from 10 to below 3 million tonnes in 4 years. Finally, in 2000, waste production in Ireland, Poland, Japan, Canada and Scotland was 9.9, 18, 25, 29 and 5 million tonnes respectively and it is obvious that all these countries have been successful to check their waste production. However, the USA in this year generated more than 200 million tonnes of leftovers while the rest of countries together produced less than 87 million tonnes of waste.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Use concise comparison Original: in combination Suggested revision: combined Why it matters: ‘Combined’ expresses the aggregate comparison more concisely.
- 2. Match table terminology Original: litter Suggested revision: waste Why it matters: ‘Waste’ is the neutral, consistent term used for the table’s measure.
- 3. Fix comparison structure Original: double than that of Suggested revision: twice that of Why it matters: The correct multiplicative comparison is ‘twice that of’, not ‘double than’.
- 4. Keep formal terminology Original: garbage Suggested revision: waste Why it matters: Using ‘waste’ maintains the formal terminology of the task.
- 5. Use correct measure Original: wastage Suggested revision: waste Why it matters: ‘Wastage’ usually means unnecessary loss, whereas the table measures produced waste.
- 6. Avoid changed meaning Original: waste products Suggested revision: waste Why it matters: ‘Waste products’ can mean products made from waste, so ‘waste’ is clearer here.
- 7. Correct time interval Original: Next year Suggested revision: In 1992 Why it matters: The next recorded year is 1992, four years after 1988 rather than the following year.
- 8. Correct percentage change Original: almost a fifty percent increase Suggested revision: an increase of about 40% Why it matters: The rise from 107 to 150 million tonnes is approximately 40%.
- 9. Clarify the reference Original: reduce it Suggested revision: reduce their waste output Why it matters: The plural subject requires a plural possessive reference, and naming the measure removes ambiguity.
- 10. Use neutral description Original: improvement Suggested revision: decrease Why it matters: The table shows a numerical decline but does not evaluate it as an improvement.
- 11. Use formal time phrase Original: in 4 years Suggested revision: over four years Why it matters: ‘Over four years’ naturally describes change across the 1988–1992 interval.
- 12. Use past reference Original: in this year Suggested revision: in that year Why it matters: ‘That year’ correctly refers back to the past year 2000.
Suggested Rewrites
- in combination combined
- litter waste
- double than that of twice that of
- garbage waste
- wastage waste
- waste products waste
Why this response received Band 6.5
The response establishes the United States as the dominant waste producer and supports the chronological comparison with a wide range of accurate figures. However, it wrongly concludes that all five other countries controlled waste by 2000, although four recorded increases from 1988, and its single-paragraph format weakens grouping. The priority is to base the overview on verified overall trends and divide the yearly details into logical paragraphs.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Detailed feedback by IELTS writing criterion after the annotated essay.
Task Achievement
The dominant US figures and most yearly data are accurately selected, but the final claim about all five other countries controlling waste contradicts the table.
State the broader trend accurately: US waste rose sharply, and most of the other countries also ended higher in 2000 than in 1988.
Coherence and Cohesion
The chronological ordering is easy to follow and comparisons are connected clearly, but the lack of paragraphing weakens the grouping of information.
Place the overview in its own paragraph and divide the detailed figures into two logically grouped body paragraphs.
Lexical Resource
A reasonably wide vocabulary is used, but substitutes such as litter, wastage, waste products, and leftovers are imprecise in this statistical context.
Use waste and waste production consistently, reserving variation for accurate verbs such as produced, generated, rose, and fell.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A varied range of complex sentences is handled with generally good control, although a few errors such as double than and rest of countries remain.
Refine comparison structures and articles by using twice that of and the rest of the countries.
Use this task for your next draft
Feedback is more useful when you actively apply it in a draft, rather than only recognising improvements on the page.
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.
The question will be loaded automatically.