The charts below show the results of a questionnaire that asked visitors to the Parkway Hotel how they rated the hotel's customer service. The same questionnaire was given to 100 guests in the years 2005 and 2010.
Sample Response
The pie charts show the satisfaction levels of guests of the Parkway Hotelhotel regarding its customer service in 2005 and 2010. Overall, in 2010, the percentages of people who were contended about the customer service quality of this hotel increased considerably than that of 2005. Now turning to the details, in 2005, almost every visitor out of five opined that the customer service of Parkway hotel was poor while 15% thought that it was very poor. Forty-five percent of respondents rated the hotel's customer service as satisfactoryRoughly half of the survey takers expressed their satisfaction regarding their experience with the hotel's guest service and 14% said that it was good. One in twenty respondentsOne out of twenty such visitors rated itwere quite satisfied and they thought that the service was excellentactually excellent. Turning to the 2010 resultsNow getting back the survey result in 2010, it is evident that the percentage of satisfied respondentsthe percentages of happy guests out of 100 Deletewho expressed their opinion was substantially higher than five years earliersoared than that of five years earlier. 28% of respondentsthem thought that the service was excellent, whichexcellent which was around nearly six times as high as6 times higher than the figure for the same categorypoll result of this same category in 2005. Guests who thought that the service was good accounted for 39%accounted for 39, a substantial increase froma great increase than that of 2005. Finally, the ratio of guests who were dissatisfied with the hotel's guest service decreased considerably as well.
Why this response received Band 6.0
The response clearly identifies the major shift towards positive customer-service ratings and accurately reports several important figures, including the large increases in excellent and good ratings. Its main limitation is incomplete detail for 2010: satisfactory, poor, and very poor ratings are not quantified, while awkward wording sometimes blurs category distinctions. Prioritise presenting a balanced comparison of all five categories across both years.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Achievement
The overview and principal positive changes are accurate, but the 2010 decline across the three lower categories is insufficiently developed.
Report the 2010 satisfactory, poor, and very poor figures and compare each directly with its 2005 value.
Coherence and Cohesion
The response moves logically from the overview through 2005 and 2010, though one long paragraph and repetitive transitions weaken organisation.
Use a separate overview and one detail paragraph for each year, with direct category-to-category comparisons.
Lexical Resource
Some useful survey vocabulary is attempted, but frequent awkward choices such as ‘contended’, ‘opined’, and ‘soared than’ reduce naturalness.
Use standard phrases including ‘rated the service’, ‘respondents’, ‘rose to’, ‘fell to’, and ‘accounted for’.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A range of structures is attempted, but comparative forms, articles, agreement, and percentage constructions contain frequent errors.
Proofread every comparison for ‘higher than’, include the percent sign, and keep percentage subjects grammatically singular.
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 charts below show the results of a questionnaire that asked visitors to the Parkway Hotel how they rated the hotel's customer service. The same questionnaire was given to 100 guests in the years 2005 and 2010.
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.