The table on this page contains eight numbers. The report below it uses six. The two it leaves out are not an oversight — they are the highest-scoring decision in the answer. Task 1 Academic is marked on what you select, not on how much you transcribe, and the current descriptors say so in plain text: "Key features which are selected are covered and clearly highlighted." Selected. Not "all data reported".
The task
The official ielts.org Academic Writing format page defines the job:
"In Task 1, you have to describe some visual information in your own words (a graph, table, chart or diagram)."
"You need to write at least 150 words in about 20 minutes."
And the warning that goes with it:
"You must write at least 150 words and will be penalised if your answer is too short."
The same page adds: "Task 2 contributes twice as much as Task 1 to the Writing score" — every minute spent transcribing a table is taken from the task worth double.
The data — original, and checkable
There is no image here. The scenario is an original invention for this page, stated precisely so you can check every claim in the report against it.
The table shows the percentage of households with internet access in one country, in 2012 and 2022, grouped by the age of the oldest resident:
| Age of oldest resident | 2012 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|
| Under 35 | 89% | 97% |
| 35–54 | 78% | 95% |
| 55–74 | 41% | 83% |
| 75 and over | 9% | 46% |
Eight figures. Report all eight in sequence and you have written a list, not a report.
The report (167 words)
The table compares the proportion of households with internet access in 2012 and 2022, divided by the age of the oldest person living in the household.
Overall, access rose in every group over the decade, and the gap between younger and older households narrowed sharply — although households headed by someone aged 75 or over remained well behind all the others.
Households whose oldest resident was under 35 were already near saturation in 2012, at 89 per cent, and this figure edged up slightly to 97 per cent by 2022. The 35–54 group followed a similar path, reaching 95 per cent by the end of the period, so these two groups finished almost indistinguishable.
Change was far more dramatic in older households. Access among the 55–74 group more than doubled to 83 per cent, while the 75-and-over group recorded the steepest proportional rise of all, climbing from just 9 per cent in 2012 to 46 per cent in 2022 — still under half, and far below every other category.
Read against the four criteria — by name
The official scoring page names them: "Task achievement (for task 1) and task response (for task 2), Coherence and cohesion, Lexical resource, Grammatical range and accuracy", and adds: "The criteria are weighted equally and the score on the task is the average." Task 1 is marked on Task Achievement — a different column of the descriptors from Task 2's Task Response.
Task Achievement. The Band 7 line for Academic Task 1 reads: "It presents a clear overview, the data are appropriately categorised, and main trends or differences are identified." The overview is the second paragraph — one sentence: rise everywhere, gap narrowing, oldest group still behind. It contains no numbers, which is what lets it work as an overview rather than as another detail sentence. "Appropriately categorised" is the body split: not row by row, but under-35 paired with 35–54 (near-convergence) and 55–74 with 75+ (steep growth) — a grouping the table itself never states. Band 6 asks only that "A relevant overview is attempted" and that selected key features are "adequately highlighted" — attempted versus presented is much of the distance between the bands.
Coherence and Cohesion. Band 7 asks for "a clear progression throughout the response" with cohesive devices "used flexibly". The progression is overview → converging younger groups → fast-moving older groups, and "Change was far more dramatic in older households" is the pivot — it signals the shift between categories without a single "however" or "moreover".
Lexical Resource. No descriptor quote here — this page quotes only lines verified verbatim against the official PDF, and the Lexical Resource rows are not among them, so read that column in the PDF itself. What is checkable is the variation: proportion, figure, access, group, category — "near saturation", "edged up", "almost indistinguishable", "steepest proportional rise". Every phrase does describing work — nothing is imported from a word list.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy. Band 7 requires "A variety of complex structures... with some flexibility and accuracy" and frequent error-free sentences. The report mixes relative clauses ("whose oldest resident was under 35"), a participle chain ("climbing from just 9 per cent...") and a result clause ("so these two groups finished..."). Complexity in service of comparison, not display.
What the report left out — and why that is the skill
Two of the eight figures never appear: 78% (35–54 in 2012) and 41% (55–74 in 2012). Their information survives anyway — "followed a similar path" implies the first; "more than doubled to 83 per cent" mathematically requires the second to be under 41.5. The descriptor asks for key features "selected" and "clearly highlighted" — a report that mentions everything highlights nothing. The skill being tested is editorial: decide what the table is about, then spend your 150-plus words proving it.
One honest note on length: the format page says you "will be penalised if your answer is too short", but the May-2023 descriptors PDF contains no explicit under-length penalty rule — its only hard length line is "Responses of 20 words or fewer are rated at Band 1." The two official documents word it differently; plan around the format-page warning.
The sentences that only work for this prompt
This report is deliberately unreusable. "These two groups finished almost indistinguishable" is true only because 95 and 97 sit two points apart. "More than doubled" is true only of 41→83. "Still under half" only works because 46 falls just below 50. Swap in a different table and every one of those sentences becomes false — which is the point. A memorised frame cannot produce them, and the descriptors treat memorisation as a defect all the way down to Band 0 ("totally memorised answer").
Why the template version scores worse
You have seen the template version: "The table illustrates information about...", then "It is clear that...", then one paragraph per row with both numbers dutifully reported, closed with "In conclusion, the table shows an upward trend." Every sentence of it could be stapled onto any table ever printed — so none of it demonstrates selection, categorisation or highlighting, the exact things the Task Achievement column rewards. The descriptor header cuts against it too: "A script must fully fit the positive features of the descriptor at a particular level" — generic scaffolding fits nothing fully.
No band is assigned to this sample, and you should distrust any page that assigns one — a band comes from a trained examiner rating a real script under test conditions, and there is no examiner in this room. What you can check is visible: the overview sentence, the grouping, the two missing numbers.
What actually costs you
- No overview. Band 7 says "presents a clear overview" — without one, strong detail paragraphs cannot rescue Task Achievement.
- Reporting every number. Selection is the tested skill — a full transcription highlights nothing.
- Going under 150 words. The format page is blunt: "penalised if your answer is too short."
- Opinions or explanations. The task is to "describe some visual information in your own words" — why internet access rose is not in the table and not in the task.
- Spending 30 minutes here. About 20 minutes is the official guidance, and "Task 2 contributes twice as much as Task 1 to the Writing score."
Try one
[Write a marked Task 1 →] — one full task, marked, no card required.