The table below shows the proportion of different categories of families living in poverty in Australia in 1999.
Sample Response
The table showsgives a breakdown of the different typestype of families that werefamily who were living in poverty in Australia in 1999. OverallOn average, 11% of all households, comprising almost two million people, were living in povertywere in this position. However, sole-parent householdsthose consisting of only one parent or a single adult without childrena single adult had almost doubledoubt the overall poverty ratethis proportion of poor people, with 21% and 19% respectively. Couples tendedgenerally tended to be less likely to live in povertybetter off, with a lower poverty ratelower poverty levels for couples without children (7%) than among couples with childrenthan those with children (12%). It is noticeable that for both household types with childrenboth types of household with children, a higher-than-average proportion wasa higher than average proportion were living in poverty in 1999at this time. Older people were generally less likely to be poor, though once again the trend favoured eldery couples (only 4%) rather than single eldery people (6%). Overall the table suggests that households of single adults and those with children were more likely to be living in poverty than those consisting of couples.
Why this response received Band 7.0
The response gives a clear overview and accurately compares the poverty rates across every household category, with especially effective contrasts between one-adult households, couples, and families with children. Its main weakness is uneven language accuracy, including the incorrect phrase “almost doubt” and repeated spelling errors, while the single-paragraph format makes the report less easy to navigate. Prioritise proofreading key comparative expressions and dividing the response into overview and detail paragraphs.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Achievement
The report accurately covers all poverty proportions and provides a clear summary of the most vulnerable and least vulnerable household groups.
Strengthen precision by explicitly identifying sole-parent and single-without-children households in the final comparison instead of using the broad phrase “single adults.”
Coherence and Cohesion
The comparisons follow a clear logical sequence, but presenting the entire report as one paragraph limits structural clarity.
Create a separate overview and divide the details into higher-poverty and lower-poverty household groups.
Lexical Resource
There is sufficient range for describing household categories and comparisons, though several word-choice and spelling errors reduce precision.
Correct “almost doubt” to “almost double” and consistently spell “elderly” accurately.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
The response uses several complex comparative structures successfully, although agreement and noun-form errors occur.
Proofread phrases such as “different type of family who were” for plural agreement and more accurate relative-clause reference.
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.