IELTS Academic Writing Task 1: Family Weekly Spending
The Task:
The chart below gives information about how families in one country spent their weekly income in 1968 and in 2018.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
Write at least 150 words.
1968 and 2018: average weekly spending by families
Task 1
Advertisement
Band 9 Model Answer
The provided bar chart compares the proportion of weekly income that families in a specific country allocated to various household expenses in the years 1968 and 2018.
Overall, there was a profound shift in consumer spending habits over the 50-year period. While the budget allocated to essential survival needs, particularly food and clothing, plummeted, the proportion of income spent on lifestyle, recreation, and asset categories—such as housing, leisure, and transport—experienced substantial growth.
In 1968, food was by far the most significant financial burden, consuming exactly 35% of a family’s weekly income. However, by 2018, this figure had dramatically halved to approximately 17%. Similarly, spending on clothing and footwear experienced a steep decline, dropping from 10% in 1968 to a mere 5% half a century later. Fuel and power, alongside personal goods, also saw slight decreases, ending 2018 as the lowest expenditure categories at roughly 4% each.
Conversely, the financial allocation for housing and leisure surged over the decades. Housing costs nearly doubled, rising from 10% in 1968 to just under 20% in 2018, effectively overtaking food as the primary household expense. Even more strikingly, expenditure on leisure activities saw the most dramatic overall increase, soaring by roughly 13% to reach approximately 22% of the weekly budget, making it the highest single expense in 2018. Transportation costs also followed this upward trajectory, climbing from roughly 8% to 14% by 2018, indicating a broader societal shift toward mobility and recreation.
💡 Why this is a Band 9 Answer:
- Task Achievement: The answer flawlessly summarizes the chart, completely replacing the repetitive phrasing and grammatical errors of the original draft. The overview highlights the overarching societal shift (from basic survival needs like food to lifestyle expenses like leisure and housing).
- Coherence & Cohesion: Paragraphs are logically organized. One paragraph focuses exclusively on the categories that decreased (Food, Clothing, Fuel), while the next focuses on the categories that increased (Housing, Leisure, Transport). Transition phrases are used naturally (Overall, Similarly, Conversely, Even more strikingly).
- Lexical Resource: Uses precise, advanced vocabulary appropriate for describing economic data and consumer habits (financial burden, plummeted, substantial growth, steep decline, upward trajectory, societal shift).
- Grammatical Range & Accuracy: Employs a superb mix of complex sentence structures flawlessly while maintaining highly accurate phrasing (“While the budget allocated to essential survival needs… plummeted, the proportion of income spent on lifestyle… experienced substantial growth.”).
Advertisement
IELTS Academic Writing Task 2: Retaining Skilled Professionals
The Task:
Some people believe that professionals, such as doctors and engineers, should be required to work in the country where they did their training. Others believe they should be free to work in another country if they wish.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Write at least 250 words.
Task 2
Band 9 Model Essay
The phenomenon of the “brain drain,” wherein highly skilled professionals such as medical practitioners and engineers migrate to foreign countries, is a heavily contested global issue. While some argue that these experts possess a moral and financial obligation to serve the nation that facilitated their training, others assert that freedom of movement is a fundamental human right. In my opinion, although governments invest heavily in higher education, professionals must retain the absolute right to work globally, as this ultimately fosters international collaboration and accelerates human progress.
Those who advocate for mandatory domestic service primarily base their argument on economic fairness and infrastructure stability. In many nations, university degrees in medicine and advanced engineering are heavily subsidized by taxpayer funds. Consequently, citizens argue that these professionals owe a profound debt to their society. If a developing country invests millions into training top-tier surgeons, only to have them immediately immigrate to wealthier Western nations for higher salaries, the origin country suffers a devastating loss of critical talent and healthcare resources. From this perspective, requiring graduates to work domestically for a set number of years is viewed as a highly justifiable return on public investment.
However, restricting where an individual can live and work fundamentally violates basic personal liberties. Beyond the principle of human rights, allowing professionals to migrate freely yields immense global benefits. When brilliant engineers and doctors move to countries with state-of-the-art research facilities and immense funding, they are empowered to make groundbreaking discoveries that benefit the entire world, not just their host nation. For instance, the rapid development of global medical treatments is heavily reliant on international teams of scientists who have migrated to top global research hubs. Furthermore, expatriate professionals frequently send substantial financial remittances back to their home countries, indirectly boosting their native economies.
In conclusion, while the frustration of nations experiencing a mass exodus of skilled workers is completely understandable, legally binding professionals to their country of training is a draconian measure. I firmly believe that the freedom to seek the best professional opportunities globally should be fiercely protected. To combat the brain drain, governments should instead focus on creating competitive domestic working environments that naturally incentivize their brightest minds to stay.
💡 Why this is a Band 9 Answer:
- Task Response: The essay perfectly addresses both views in the prompt. It thoroughly explains why some want to restrict movement (taxpayer subsidies, preventing brain drain) and why others support freedom (human rights, global innovation), before providing a strong, well-justified personal opinion.
- Coherence & Cohesion: The essay utilizes a highly effective four-paragraph structure. Transition phrases guide the reader effortlessly through the complex arguments (Those who advocate, Consequently, However, Beyond the principle, Furthermore, In conclusion).
- Lexical Resource: Showcases an exceptional, sophisticated vocabulary suited for a socioeconomic and ethical discursive essay (brain drain, heavily subsidized, profound debt, mandatory domestic service, expatriate professionals, draconian measure, mass exodus).
- Grammatical Range & Accuracy: Uses a wide variety of complex grammatical structures perfectly, creating a highly persuasive, authoritative, and academic tone.
Advertisement