In this post: How the three essays differ, my band 6 income essay, and the coffee chart.
Bar Chart Samples · 3 parts
- 1. The short answer, band 6 essay (you are here)
- 2. The band 6.5 and 7.5 essays
- 3. Side by side, rewrite, checklist
✦ In this post
These three bar chart essays happen to come from the beginning, middle and end of my month of intensive practice. The first was written on 26 May 2024 and scored 6 overall; the second on 1 June, 6.5; the third on 29 June, 7.5, my highest Task 1 score in this batch of essays.
When you see that the first two only got 5 for Task Achievement (TA), your instinct is to blame the overview, because everyone says “no overview, TA 5 at most”. But when I checked them against the charts again, I found that the overviews in both essays were actually broadly correct. In the coffee essay especially, not a single sentence of the overview was wrong. The real problems were in the body: a scale misread by 10 percentage points, numbers in the same paragraph contradicting each other, a category given the wrong name, and a whole city left out.
This is the most common trap with bar charts. Unlike a pie chart, a bar chart usually does not print the numbers on the chart; you have to estimate them from the scale yourself. And with so many bars, it is easy to read the wrong row or miss one out. TA judges whether the whole essay describes the chart accurately and completely, not just the overview. All three essays below are reproduced unchanged, typos and grammar mistakes included. “Essay N” is the number of the essay in the order I submitted it for marking. The explanations of the scores are my own analysis against the public IELTS band descriptors.
1. The short answer: how the three bar chart essays differ
| What I compared | Band 6 essay (TA 5) | Band 6.5 essay (TA 5) | Band 7.5 essay (TA 7–8) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overview | Gives the ranking but not the changes | Completely correct | Main trends correct and clear |
| Accuracy of numbers | Several figures off by 1–2 million; a year mistyped | Scale misread by 10 percentage points; a paragraph contradicts itself | Only two small figures off by 1 |
| Category names | “Less than $25,000” written as “$25,000” | Correct | Correct |
| Coverage | All five groups covered | Two cities left out of some categories | All four countries and all four years covered |
| Comparisons | kept increasing follows a fall, which makes no sense | Claims one gap is smaller when it is the same size | Groups countries by similar trends, so the comparisons are justified |
According to the band descriptors, TA 5 means key features are presented but not adequately covered, and the description may be inaccurate. Many people only remember “no overview means a 5” and forget the other half: if the body has enough errors, you also get a 5.
2. The band 6 essay: US households by annual income (TA 5)
What the task shows
This task is from Cambridge IELTS 18, Test 2 (Essay 5). I wrote it on 26 May 2024, untimed, and it is about 220 words. The chart shows the number of households in the US (in millions) in five annual income groups, for 2007, 2011 and 2015. The five groups are: less than $25,000; $25,000–49,999; $50,000–74,999; $75,000–99,999; and $100,000 or more.
| Income group | 2007 | 2011 | 2015 | Features |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Less than $25,000 | about 25 | about 29 | about 28 | Rose in 2011, then fell slightly |
| $25,000–49,999 | about 27 | about 30 | about 28.5 | Same pattern; the largest of the five groups in 2011 |
| $50,000–74,999 | about 21 | about 21 | about 21 | Almost unchanged across the three years |
| $75,000–99,999 | about 14.5 | about 14 | about 15 | The smallest in all three years |
| $100,000 or more | about 29.5 | about 28 | about 33 | The largest in 2007 and 2015; dipped slightly in 2011, then rose sharply |
The key points of this chart: the highest income group was the largest in 2007 and 2015, but in 2011 it was overtaken by the two lowest income groups; the two low-income groups grew in 2011 and fell slightly in 2015; the two middle groups were relatively stable, and $75,000–99,999 was always the smallest.
Score card
My original essay
This is the version I submitted for marking, unedited (typos and grammar mistakes kept).
The bar chart illustrates the comparisons regarding the household annual income in US over the years 2007, 2011, and 2015. Overall, it is clear to see that households with more than $100,000 annual income were higher than all the other groups except 2011. In contrast, households in $75,000-$99,999 salary group were the least in all sample years.
As regards households in less than $74,999, both of households in $25,000 and $25,000-$49,999 income group showed a similar trend. Starting at 25m and 26m respectively in 2007, both of them grew in 2011, with 29m and 30m respectively. By 2015, they had decreased slight to roughly 27m and 28m in 2015. Regarding households which earn between $50,000 and $74,999, households with income around $50,000-$74,999 were essentially constant in all three years, with the number in the range between roughly 20.5 millions and 21 millions.
With regard to households above $75,000, the figure for households earn around $75,000-$99,999 began at nearly 14.5m in 2017, dipped slightly to 14m in 2011 and then recovered, finishing the period at 15m in 2015. Additionally, as for the households earned more than $100,000, starting with the biggest income group with approximately 29m in 2007, the number witnessed the downward trend to nearly 27m in 2011 and kept increasing considerably to the level of about 33m by 2015.
Why this essay got a 6
Task Achievement 5: the overview only gives the ranking, and the body has many inaccurate numbers and categories. The overview says households with more than $100,000 annual income were higher than all the other groups except 2011 and households in $75,000-$99,999 salary group were the least in all sample years, and both sentences are correct. But they only say “which was largest and which was smallest”. They say nothing about the changes, which are the most interesting thing on this chart: the highest income group grew sharply in 2015, and the two low-income groups grew in 2011. This chart has three years, so an overview that ignores change over time is missing half of the key points.
The problems in the body are cumulative. None is big on its own, but together they make the data unreliable:
| What I wrote | Roughly on the chart | Problem |
|---|---|---|
| households in $25,000 | Less than $25,000 | Wrong category name; the reader would think it means “exactly $25,000” |
| $25,000–49,999 group in 2007: 26m | about 27 | Off by 1 million |
| Two low-income groups in 2015: roughly 27m and 28m | about 28 and 28.5 | Both too low |
| began at nearly 14.5m in 2017 | 2007 | Year mistyped; there is no 2017 on the chart |
| Highest income group in 2011: nearly 27m | about 28 | Off by 1 million |
| witnessed the downward trend … and kept increasing considerably | A fall, then a rise | After a fall you cannot say kept increasing |
Also, my opening sentence, the comparisons regarding the household annual income, paraphrases the task as “a comparison of household annual income”. But the chart compares how many households there were in each income group, not how much they earned. From the very first sentence, this paraphrase told the examiner I had not quite grasped what the chart measures. households … were higher in the overview has the same problem: households are not “higher”; the number of households is larger.
Coherence & Cohesion 7: sensible paragraphs, but with repetition and a break in logic. Dividing the five groups into “below $75,000” and “above $75,000” is a reasonable split. Marks were lost because in paragraph two, Regarding households which earn between $50,000 and $74,999, households with income around $50,000-$74,999 were essentially constant mentions the same category twice in one sentence, and in paragraph three kept increasing contradicts what comes before it.
Lexical Resource 6: too few, and imprecise, ways of naming the categories. LR 6 is the lowest of the three essays, and the reason is specific. For the five income groups I kept repeating households in …, households with income around …, households earn around … and salary group. Around is imprecise for a range, and salary is not the same as income. Bar chart categories often have long names, and being able to refer to them accurately in several different ways (for example, the lowest-income bracket, households earning between … and …, the top income group) is itself something LR rewards. There is also decreased slight (should be slightly) and the downward trend (should be a downward trend).
Grammatical Range & Accuracy 7: there are participle clauses and relative clauses. The main errors are households earn around …, which needs earning or who earn, and 20.5 millions, which should have no s.
3. The band 6.5 essay: coffee habits in five Australian cities (TA 5, CC 8)
What the task shows
This task is from Cambridge IELTS 15, Test 1 (Essay 16). I wrote it on 1 June 2024; my note says it took 21 minutes (15:55–16:16) and 196 words. The chart shows the results of a survey: the percentage of residents in five Australian cities (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Hobart) who, in the previous four weeks, had bought fresh coffee, bought instant coffee, or gone to a café for coffee or tea. Note that the vertical axis starts at 20%, not 0.
| City | Bought fresh coffee | Bought instant coffee | Went to a café |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sydney | about 43.5% | about 45.5% | about 61% |
| Melbourne | about 42% | about 48.5% | about 63.5% |
| Brisbane | about 34.5% | about 53% | about 55.5% |
| Adelaide | about 34.5% | about 50% | about 49.5% |
| Hobart | about 38.5% | about 54.5% | about 63% |
Key features: going to a café was the most common habit in four cities, with Adelaide the exception (instant coffee slightly higher); buying fresh coffee was the least common in all five. There is also an interesting contrast: Sydney and Melbourne had the highest rates for buying fresh coffee but the lowest for instant coffee, almost the opposite of the other cities.
Continue reading · Part 2 of 3
IELTS Notes in English · Band Score Samples (post 2 of 19)
← Previous: IELTS Task 1 Line Graph Samples: Band 6 vs Band 7 Compared
Next →: IELTS Task 1 Pie Chart Samples: Band 6.5 vs Band 7 Compared
Task 1 Structure · Task 2 Structure · Topic Guides · Writing Language · Band Score Samples · Practice Methods · Speaking & Study Tips
✦ Target Your Future
Some days you practise for hours and the score still does not move. I hope these notes remind you that the setbacks are part of the road: every recording you replayed, every essay you rewrote and every sentence you finally dared to say is progress you have already made.
I wrote this down so the next person can take fewer detours. You do not have to follow my method exactly. Find a rhythm that works for you, rest when you need to, and come back for the next small step.
I hope what you take away is more than a number on a score report: a little more confidence in yourself, and the courage to step a bit closer to the world.
— Ting
← Back to IELTS notes in English
Leave a Reply