In this post: My band 7 essay on languages spoken by British university students, then both essays side by side on overview, coverage and linking.
Pie Chart Samples · 3 parts
- 1. The short answer and band 6.5 essay
- 2. Band 7 essay and comparison (you are here)
- 3. Rewrite, patterns and checklist
✦ In this post
3. The band 7 essay: languages spoken by British university students
What the task shows
This task is from Cambridge IELTS 11, Test 2 (Essay 11). I wrote it on 30 May 2024; my note says it took 20 minutes (13:43–14:03) and 178 words. There are two pie charts showing the proportions of British students at one university in England who could speak other languages in addition to English, in 2000 and 2010. The six categories are: no other language, French only, German only, Spanish only, another language, and two other languages.
| Category | 2000 | 2010 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spanish only | 30% | 35% | Largest in both years, and rising |
| No other language | 20% | 10% | Halved |
| French only | 15% | 10% | Fell |
| German only | 10% | 10% | Unchanged |
| Another language | 15% | 20% | Rose |
| Two other languages | 10% | 15% | Rose |
The key points of this chart: Spanish was always the largest; the proportion of students who spoke only English halved; and the proportions speaking “another” or “two other” languages both rose. In other words, the students’ language skills improved overall over the ten years.
Score card
My original essay
This is the version I submitted for marking, unedited (typos and grammar mistakes kept).
The pie charts compare the percentage regarding other languages that local university students in the UK can speak in addition to English over the years 2000 and 2010. Overall, Spanish was a main contributor in both years. Additionally, the distribution of French, another language, two other languages, and no other language had been relocated by 2010.
In 2000, Spanish was a dominant language, which accounted for 30%, closely followed by students who did not know any other language, making up 20%. As for French and other language, both of them contributed equally, constituting 15% respectively of the total. On the contrary, students speak German and two other languages, the percentage were the least at 10%.
Regarding the chart in 2010, Spanish was still a dominant language, but now it occupied by 35%. Besides that, the percentage of British students who knew another language or two other languages witnessed considerable growth, reaching 20% and 15% respectively. In contrast, the remaining three types of language proficiency, including no other language, French only, and German only all took up 10% separately.
Why this essay got a 7
Task Achievement 7: every number right and every category covered, but half the overview is not specific enough. The biggest strength of this essay is that it is accurate and complete. Six categories in 2000 and six in 2010: all twelve numbers are correct and none is missing. I also described categories with the same value together, for example French and other language, both of them contributed equally for 2000 and the remaining three types … all took up 10% for 2010. That is how 178 words could cover all the information without listing every item one by one.
But the second overview sentence, the distribution of French, another language, two other languages, and no other language had been relocated by 2010, only says “there was a change”, not “what kind of change”. After reading it, the examiner still does not know whether things rose or fell. A better version would state the direction: the proportion of students who spoke only English halved, and the proportion who spoke one or more other languages grew. Also, because the essay is divided by year, the 2010 paragraph only reports values; the two falls (no other language from 20% to 10%, French from 15% to 10%) are left for the reader to work out by comparing with the previous paragraph. Stating the direction of change in the 2010 paragraph would be TA 8 writing.
One more small point: in the introduction I paraphrased “British students at one university” as local university students in the UK, which sounds like all university students in the UK, so the scope became much wider. When you paraphrase the task, never drop limiting words such as one, some or in a particular city.
Coherence & Cohesion 8: a clear structure and natural referencing. One paragraph for 2000 and one for 2010, each following the order “largest → second largest → a group with the same value → smallest”, so the reader can follow easily. In Spanish was still a dominant language, but now …, the words still and now connect the two years with minimal effort, and the remaining three types of language proficiency is a good way of referring back without listing the names again. Compared with the band 6.5 essay, this one has about the same number of linkers, but each is used for the right relationship.
Lexical Resource 7: dominant, witnessed considerable growth, took up, language proficiency are all used appropriately. The marks were lost for Spanish was a main contributor (there is only one largest category, so the largest category) and separately. In the “respectively” section of my own notes, I had written next to separately: “never use this”. It means “apart from each other, independently”, which is not the same as respectively or each, and it sounds very unnatural after a number.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy 7: students speak German and two other languages, the percentage were the least has two errors: students needs who after it, and percentage is singular but takes were. now it occupied by 35% uses the passive wrongly; just write it now accounted for 35%. And over the years 2000 and 2010 covers only two years, so in 2000 and 2010 is better.
4. The two essays side by side: overview, coverage and linking
1. The second overview sentence should make sense the moment it is read
The first overview sentence is correct in both essays; the difference is in the second. In the band 6.5 essay, the reader has to go back to the chart and work out “which three regions”. The second sentence in the band 7 essay is not specific enough either, but at least it is not wrong and does not confuse anyone. My notes used to say “always write two overview sentences; with only one, 6.5 is the maximum”. Looking back now, a more accurate rule would be: both sentences must be conclusions a reader can understand without looking at the chart.
| Type of overview | Example | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Vague | Some categories increased and some decreased. | Gives no information |
| Makes the reader search | X and Y were the smallest in three areas respectively. | The reader does not know which three |
| Change without direction | The distribution had changed by 2010. | Does not say which way |
| Specific conclusion (the goal) | The proportion of students who spoke no other language halved, while those speaking one or two other languages became more common. | The reader knows what happened straight away |
2. Coverage: categories can be combined, but must not disappear
The band 6.5 essay leaves out the industrial figures for four regions entirely, while the band 7 essay includes every category by combining those with the same value. The two essays are about the same length, but the second is far more complete. Pie charts usually have only 3–6 categories, fewer than line graphs or tables, so every category should appear at least once. Small ones can be combined into one sentence (for example, Industrial use was minimal in these regions, ranging from 5% to 12%.), but they must not vanish.
3. Your grouping should match the structure of the chart
| Type of chart | Suggested paragraphing | What these two essays did |
|---|---|---|
| Several pie charts, no time (comparing regions or groups) | Put pie charts with similar patterns into one group | Band 6.5 essay: industrial (North America, Europe) and agricultural regions split into two further groups; the right idea |
| Two pie charts, different years | One paragraph per year; the second paragraph must describe the change | Band 7 essay: one paragraph per year, though the second could describe the changes more explicitly |
| Three or more years | Group by category or trend (as with a line graph) | — |
4. More words does not mean more information
The band 6.5 essay has 208 words and the band 7 essay 178: 30 fewer words, yet a higher score. The reason is that the band 6.5 essay spends quite a few words where they are not needed. Sentences like the highest and second highest proportion of using water and which makes up 71% and 84% respectively repeat rankings that are already obvious on the chart, while the missing categories are never added. Task 1 only requires 150 words or more, and the examiner will not give you extra marks for writing over 200. Rather than saying the same thing three different ways, make sure every category appears and every “largest” and “smallest” has been checked. When you finish, I suggest going through your essay with a pen and ticking each number on the chart; any category without a tick is one you missed.
Continue reading · Part 3 of 3
IELTS Notes in English · Band Score Samples (post 3 of 19)
← Previous: IELTS Task 1 Bar Chart Samples: Band 6, 6.5 and 7.5 Compared
Next →: IELTS Task 1 Table 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