The Chart below shows the number of households in the US by their annual Income in 2007, 2011 and 2015.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
write at least 150 words
The bar chart compares the number of US households (in millions) in five income bands in 2007, 2011 and 2015.
Overall, the $25,000–$49,999 and the under-$25,000 groups were among the largest categories in all three years, while $75,000–$99,999 was consistently the smallest. The most noticeable change is that households earning $100,000 or more increased significantly by 2015.
In 2007, about 25 million households earned less than $25,000, and roughly 27 million were in the $25,000–$49,999 bracket. The $50,000–$74,999 group was lower at around 21 million, while only about 14 million earned $75,000–$99,999. Households on $100,000+ were also high, at approximately 29 million.
By 2011, the two lowest groups rose slightly to around 28 and 29 million respectively, while $100,000+ fell a little to about 27 million. In 2015, the top-income category climbed to roughly 32 million, the highest figure shown, whereas the middle bands changed only slightly.
Band 7 sample (≈190 words)
The bar chart shows how many US households (measured in millions) fell into five annual income categories in 2007, 2011 and 2015.
Overall, the distribution was fairly stable for most income bands: the $75,000–$99,999 bracket remained the smallest at around 13–14 million, and the $50,000–$74,999 group hovered close to 20–21 million. The standout movement occurred at the top end, where households earning at least $100,000 rose sharply and became the largest group by 2015.
In 2007, the lower-income categories were substantial, with approximately 25 million households earning under $25,000 and about 27 million in the $25,000–$49,999 range. The two middle bands were smaller (around 21 million for $50,000–$74,999 and roughly 14 million for $75,000–$99,999), while the $100,000+ group stood at just under 30 million.
Four years later, the two lowest brackets edged up (to roughly 28–29 million), whereas the highest-income group dipped slightly to about 27 million. By 2015, however, $100,000+ households jumped to around 32 million, overtaking all other categories, while the remaining bands changed only marginally.
What’s different between Band 6 and Band 7?
Overview quality: Band 7 clearly highlights what changed most (the surge in $100k+) and what stayed stable (middle bands).
Comparison control: Band 7 compares across years and ranks (“became the largest by 2015”), instead of mainly listing numbers.
Precision + caution: Band 7 uses accurate approximations (“around / roughly / just under”) consistently.
Language range: More varied verbs and structures (hovered, edged up, overtaking), and smoother linking.
Next time: what you should notice (quick checklist)
Units (millions) + time points (2007/2011/2015).
Big picture first: highest/lowest + biggest rise/fall.
Group patterns: which bands are stable vs changing.
Rank changes: did any category overtake another?
Don’t report everything: pick key numbers to support 2–3 main trends.
Use approximation language to avoid “fake precision.”
If you want, paste your draft and I’ll mark it with band-style feedback (TA/CC/LR/GRA) and show exactly how to push it from 6 → 7.
I want to know Band 8 sample like Got it — here are Band 8-style Task 1 samples (for the charts I gave you). I’ll keep them IELTS-safe: clear overview, selective data, strong comparisons, natural grammar.
Got it — here are Band 8-style Task 1 samples (for the charts I gave you). I’ll keep them IELTS-safe: clear overview, selective data, strong comparisons, natural grammar.
Band 8 sample — Drill 1 (Bar chart: museum visitors)
The bar chart compares the number of visitors (in millions) to three museums between 2000 and 2015.
Overall, Museum A experienced a strong and steady rise and became the most visited by the end of the period. Museum B also grew, though more moderately. By contrast, Museum C showed a consistent downward trend, starting as the leading museum but finishing last.
In 2000, Museum C attracted the highest figure at about 1.6 million visitors, while Museum A and B were lower at roughly 1.2 and 0.9 million respectively. Over the next five years, attendance at Museum A increased noticeably to around 1.8 million, overtaking Museum C, which slipped to about 1.4 million. Museum B edged up only slightly to just over 1 million.
Growth at Museum A accelerated after 2005, reaching approximately 2.4 million in 2010 and peaking at just under 3 million in 2015. Museum B followed a similar but gentler pattern, rising to around 1.5 million and then 1.7 million. Meanwhile, Museum C continued to decline, ending the period at roughly 1.1 million.
The bar chart compares the number of visitors (in millions) to three museums between 2000 and 2015.
Overall, Museum A experienced a strong and steady rise and became the most visited by the end of the period. Museum B also grew, though more moderately. By contrast, Museum C showed a consistent downward trend, starting as the leading museum but finishing last.
In 2000, Museum C attracted the highest figure at about 1.6 million visitors, while Museum A and B were lower at roughly 1.2 and 0.9 million respectively. Over the next five years, attendance at Museum A increased noticeably to around 1.8 million, overtaking Museum C, which slipped to about 1.4 million. Museum B edged up only slightly to just over 1 million.
Growth at Museum A accelerated after 2005, reaching approximately 2.4 million in 2010 and peaking at just under 3 million in 2015. Museum B followed a similar but gentler pattern, rising to around 1.5 million and then 1.7 million. Meanwhile, Museum C continued to decline, ending the period at roughly 1.1 million.
Band 8 sample — Drill 2 (Line chart: temperatures)
The line graph illustrates average monthly temperatures in two cities over a year.
Overall, City Y is consistently warmer than City X in every month. Both locations follow a typical seasonal cycle, rising from winter to a midsummer peak before cooling towards the end of the year, although City X shows a much wider annual range.
In City X, temperatures start at about 5°C in January and climb steadily, reaching roughly 13°C by April and 21°C in June. The warmest period occurs in July and August at around 24°C, after which the figure falls sharply to about 15°C in October and ends the year at approximately 6°C.
City Y begins considerably higher, at around 18°C in January, and increases gradually to about 22°C by April. It peaks at approximately 27°C in July and August, then declines moderately to around 24°C in October and finishes at roughly 19°C in December. Notably, City X varies by nearly 19 degrees across the year, compared with only about 9 degrees in City Y.
The line graph illustrates average monthly temperatures in two cities over a year.
Overall, City Y is consistently warmer than City X in every month. Both locations follow a typical seasonal cycle, rising from winter to a midsummer peak before cooling towards the end of the year, although City X shows a much wider annual range.
In City X, temperatures start at about 5°C in January and climb steadily, reaching roughly 13°C by April and 21°C in June. The warmest period occurs in July and August at around 24°C, after which the figure falls sharply to about 15°C in October and ends the year at approximately 6°C.
City Y begins considerably higher, at around 18°C in January, and increases gradually to about 22°C by April. It peaks at approximately 27°C in July and August, then declines moderately to around 24°C in October and finishes at roughly 19°C in December. Notably, City X varies by nearly 19 degrees across the year, compared with only about 9 degrees in City Y.
Band 8 sample — Drill 3 (Pie charts: energy sources 1995 vs 2025)
The pie charts compare the proportion of five energy sources in 1995 and 2025.
Overall, the energy mix becomes more balanced over time. Coal, which dominated in 1995, drops sharply by 2025, while gas and renewables gain importance, with gas becoming the largest single source.
In 1995, coal accounted for 40% of energy production, far ahead of oil at 30%. Gas contributed a relatively modest 15%, and the remaining share came from nuclear power (10%) and renewables (5%), which was the smallest component.
By 2025, coal’s share more than halves to 18%, and oil also declines to 22%. In contrast, gas rises substantially to 25%, overtaking the other sources. Renewables show the most dramatic growth in relative terms, quadrupling from 5% to 20%, while nuclear increases slightly to 15%. As a result, no single source exceeds one quarter of total energy, indicating a shift away from heavy dependence on coal and oil.
The pie charts compare the proportion of five energy sources in 1995 and 2025.
Overall, the energy mix becomes more balanced over time. Coal, which dominated in 1995, drops sharply by 2025, while gas and renewables gain importance, with gas becoming the largest single source.
In 1995, coal accounted for 40% of energy production, far ahead of oil at 30%. Gas contributed a relatively modest 15%, and the remaining share came from nuclear power (10%) and renewables (5%), which was the smallest component.
By 2025, coal’s share more than halves to 18%, and oil also declines to 22%. In contrast, gas rises substantially to 25%, overtaking the other sources. Renewables show the most dramatic growth in relative terms, quadrupling from 5% to 20%, while nuclear increases slightly to 15%. As a result, no single source exceeds one quarter of total energy, indicating a shift away from heavy dependence on coal and oil.
No comments:
Post a Comment