IELTS Task 1 Bar Chart Model Answer

Sample task: The bar chart compares the percentage of commuters who used four forms of transport to travel to work in the cities of Linton and Marston in 2025. The categories are car, bus, bicycle and walking. In Linton, the values are 48, 28, 14 and 10 percent. In Marston, they are 35, 32, 18 and 15 percent. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

This is a static comparison because all figures refer to one year. Do not write that car use increased or cycling fell. There is no earlier value. The main features are that cars were the leading mode in both cities, Linton relied much more heavily on them, and Marston had higher shares for every non-car mode. Bus use was relatively similar compared with the larger difference in car use.

A useful four-paragraph plan is introduction, overview and two detail paragraphs. Detail 1 can compare motorised transport, cars and buses. Detail 2 can compare cycling and walking. This grouping is stronger than describing all four Linton bars and then all four Marston bars because each paragraph makes direct city comparisons.

Before writing, mark the largest figure, smallest figure and closest pair. Then decide which data belongs together. Grouping can follow mode type, similar size or contrasting pattern. The chart's order is not a required writing order. Select enough figures to support the main comparisons, but do not perform unnecessary arithmetic or report a sequence of disconnected percentages.

Model introduction: The bar chart shows the proportions of workers commuting by car, bus, bicycle and on foot in two cities, Linton and Marston, in 2025. This sentence changes compares to shows, percentage to proportions and travel to work to commuting. It keeps every essential element and does not add a reason for the differences.

Model overview: Overall, the car was the most common mode in both cities, although Linton depended on it considerably more. By contrast, Marston recorded higher proportions for bus travel, cycling and walking, while walking was the least popular option in each location. The overview gives ranking and the central cross-city pattern without a data list.

Possible Detail 1: Cars accounted for 48 percent of commuting in Linton, making this mode 13 percentage points more common there than in Marston. Bus use showed the opposite pattern, although the gap was much smaller: 32 percent of Marston workers travelled by bus, compared with 28 percent in Linton. The paragraph groups motorised modes and uses the figures to support two clear contrasts.

Possible Detail 2: Active travel was less common in both places, but its combined share was higher in Marston. Cycling represented 18 percent of commuters there, four points above the Linton figure. Similarly, 15 percent walked to work in Marston, whereas the proportion in Linton was only 10 percent. The combined observation adds synthesis, while the individual values provide evidence.

The model uses common vocabulary accurately: accounted for, the most common mode, recorded a higher proportion, compared with, represented and whereas. It also varies sentence structure. One sentence begins with a category, another with a place, and another with Similarly. This variation is useful because it remains controlled and never obscures the data.

Notice the difference between percent and percentage points. The gap from 35 percent to 48 percent is 13 percentage points. Saying car use was 13 percent higher would describe a different relative calculation. If calculations are likely to cause mistakes, simply write 48 percent compared with 35 percent. Accuracy is more valuable than extra mathematical language.

Recreate the report without looking at the model. Allow two minutes to analyse, three minutes for the introduction and overview, twelve minutes for details and three minutes to check. Then change the data: imagine Marston car use is 50 percent and bus use is 17 percent. Rewrite only the overview. This forces you to respond to features rather than repeat memorised wording.

For your next task, use a bar chart with five categories or two years. Decide first whether it is static or dynamic. During review, draw lines between every comparison and the two values it connects. Highlight any sentence that describes only one bar and ask whether it can be combined with another category. Keep a record of grouping, overview and numerical grammar errors, then repeat the task several days later.