The table below gives information about the underground railway systems in six cities.
Sample Response
The given table provides data about the underground rail transit systems in six different cities, namelycities namely London, Paris, Tokyo, Washington DC, Kyoto and Los Angeles. The statistics provided are the years in which the railway systems openedthe year opening the railway systems, their route lengths in kilometresthe kilometres of route and the total number of passengerstravellers per year in millions.
As is given in the table, London's railway systemLondon railway service was the earliest to openfirst to launch compared to the other five citiesother five cities, openingi.e., in 1863, and it covers a total distance of 394 kilometres. By contrast, the city of Los Angeles has the newest underground railway, which was opened in 2001, and it is the second least usedfalls under the second least used with a meremere 50 million passengerscommuters and the second-shortest routesecond shortest length with just 28 kilometers, whereas the Kyoto railway system ranks laststands at the last spot with 45 million passengerspeople and a route length of 11 kilometres11 kilometers length Deleterespectively.
Interestingly, the Tokyo rail transit system which was built in the year 1927, has the highest number of passengers, which accounts for 1927 million followed by Paris with a large user base of 1191 million.
Overall, it can be inferred from the presentation that most of the early built and longest rail routes have significantly higher number of passengers, compared to modern and short length transit systems.
Why this response received Band 7.0
The response is clearly organised and highlights useful extremes, including the oldest, newest, longest, shortest, busiest, and least-used systems. Its main limitation is incomplete coverage, particularly the absence of Washington DC and most route-length and opening-date comparisons. The highest-priority improvement is to group all six cities into concise comparisons so that the overview is supported by a fuller selection of data.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Achievement
The overview is clear and the principal extremes are accurately identified, but several relevant comparisons and all Washington DC data are omitted.
Add a compact comparison covering Washington DC and the middle-ranking route lengths and dates rather than describing only the extremes.
Coherence and Cohesion
The response follows a logical introduction-detail-overview structure with clear progression, although one very long comparison sentence is overloaded.
Divide the Los Angeles and Kyoto comparison into shorter sentences and group details consistently by date, route length, and passenger numbers.
Lexical Resource
There is a good range of transport and comparison vocabulary, but several collocations are awkward, including “year opening,” “falls under the second least used,” and “11 kilometers length.”
Use natural forms such as “opening year,” “the second least-used system,” and “a route length of 11 kilometres.”
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Complex structures are attempted successfully enough for meaning to remain clear, but article use, noun phrases, punctuation, and comparative constructions contain recurring errors.
Prioritise accurate articles and noun phrases, and avoid attaching several relative and contrast clauses to the same sentence.
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 gives information about the underground railway systems in six cities.
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.