The table below shows the proportion of different categories of families living in poverty in Australia in 1999.
Sample Response
The table shows the proportions fora breakdown of different household types whose members were living in povertytypes of families who were living in poverty in Australia in 1999.
Overall,It is noticeable that 11% of people were living in poverty. However, this figure was particularlyconsiderably high among sole-parent householdsamong the sole parents and single adults without childrensingle people who did not have children and the corresponding proportionsthose percentages were 21% and 19% respectively. Moreover, this proportion was notably highersignificantly prominent among the couples who had children compared with the family structures consisted with couples who did not have children. In fact, the proportion of couples with children living in poverty was five percentage points higher than5% more than that in the households consisting only of couplesfamily types consisted only with couples. In contrast, this trend favoured aged people. However, this figure was two percentage points higherslightly more (2%) for single aged peopleamong the single aged people than the figure for aged couplesthan that in the family category of aged couples.
In conclusion, it is clear that the proportion of people living in poverty varied across household typesaccording to their family structures.
Why this response received Band 6.0
The response selects the overall poverty figure and makes useful comparisons among higher-risk, couple, and aged households, so its coverage is purposeful and concise. The main weakness is that the overview merely says proportions varied and several comparisons give only differences rather than the actual table values; prioritise a sharper highest-versus-lowest overview and support each comparison with precise percentages.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Achievement
Relevant categories and accurate differences are selected, but the overview is vague and several important percentages are not stated directly.
Highlight sole parents and singles without children as the highest groups and aged couples as the lowest, then give the exact figures for each comparison.
Coherence and Cohesion
The report progresses from an introduction through grouped comparisons to a conclusion, although repeated contrast markers and some vague references make cohesion mechanical.
Organise the details explicitly into high-, middle-, and low-poverty groups and use contrast markers only where the relationship genuinely changes.
Lexical Resource
The response shows an adequate range for comparison, but collocations such as “significantly prominent,” “consisted with,” and “trend favoured” are inaccurate.
Prefer precise phrases such as households consisting of couples, a higher proportion, and the lowest incidence of poverty.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Complex sentences are attempted and usually understandable, but recurring errors in relative structures, prepositions, comparison forms, and agreement reduce accuracy.
Use controlled comparison patterns such as “X was five percentage points higher than Y” and proofread noun phrases and prepositions.
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 table below shows the proportion of different categories of families living in poverty in Australia in 1999.
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.