EduCareer

← All Writing Lessons
FREE IELTS WRITING PRACTICE

Task 1: Tables

The question

The table below shows the average monthly rent for a one-bedroom flat in four European cities, in US dollars. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. Write at least 150 words.

City201520202025
Dublin1,1501,4901,980
Berlin7809501,240
Lisbon5207401,180
Warsaw410520690
Average monthly rent, one-bedroom flat (USD)

Why tables are harder

A line graph hands you the pattern. A table hides it.

With a graph you can see the shape before you read a single number. A table gives you nothing but figures, so the work of finding the pattern falls entirely on you - and under time pressure most candidates skip it and simply read the grid aloud.

That is why tables produce more band 6 answers than any other Task 1 form. The English is often fine; the answer just never rises above the data.

The fix is to do a small amount of arithmetic before writing. Not precise calculation - rough proportions. Which row grew the most? Which grew the fastest? Those are rarely the same row, and noticing the difference is what a table is really testing.

Four questions to ask any table

Sixty seconds of this before writing is what separates band 6 from band 7 here.

  1. Which is highest and lowest overall? In the table above, Dublin is the most expensive at every date and Warsaw the cheapest at every date. That stability is itself a feature worth stating.
  2. Which changed most in absolute terms? Dublin, up 830 dollars. The biggest number usually produces the biggest absolute movement, which is why it is the less interesting answer.
  3. Which changed most proportionally? Lisbon, from 520 to 1,180 - more than double, and far ahead of Dublin, which rose by roughly seventy per cent. This is the finding that is invisible until you look for it.
  4. Does the ranking change? Here it does: Lisbon starts below Berlin and finishes close to it. Any change in order deserves a sentence.

Group by row or by column?

A table can be cut two ways, and picking the right one is most of the battle.

Group by row (by city, country or product) when the rows behave differently from each other - some rising, some falling, or one clearly exceptional. This is the more common choice.

Group by column (by year or date) when every row does much the same thing and the story is about the period rather than the categories.

For the rent table, rows win: every city rose, but Lisbon rose in a way none of the others did. An answer organised by year would bury that.

The same question at band 6, 7 and 8

These are our own model answers, written to illustrate each band. They are not real candidate scripts, and the bands are our assessment rather than an official score.

Band 6The grid read aloud, row by row

The table gives information about the average monthly rent for a one-bedroom flat in four cities in Europe in 2015, 2020 and 2025.

In Dublin the rent was 1,150 dollars in 2015, 1,490 dollars in 2020 and 1,980 dollars in 2025. In Berlin it was 780 dollars in 2015, 950 dollars in 2020 and 1,240 dollars in 2025. In Lisbon the rent was 520 dollars, then 740 dollars, then 1,180 dollars. In Warsaw it was 410 dollars in 2015, 520 dollars in 2020 and 690 dollars in 2025.

All of the cities became more expensive. Dublin was the most expensive city and Warsaw was the cheapest.

Task AchievementAll twelve figures are accurate and all twelve are reported. Nothing is selected, there is no overview near the start, and no comparison beyond highest and lowest.
Coherence and CohesionOne city per sentence in table order. No grouping and no linking.
Lexical ResourceIt was and the rent was carry almost the whole answer. Nothing describes the size or speed of the increases.
GrammarAccurate but repetitive - the same pattern twelve times.

What would lift this: Do the arithmetic first. Lisbon more than doubled while Dublin rose by about seventy per cent - that single comparison would transform this answer. Then open with an overview and pair the cities instead of listing them.

Band 7Overview present, and the proportional finding is spotted

The table compares the average monthly rent for a one-bedroom flat in four European cities at five-year intervals between 2015 and 2025.

Overall, rents rose in all four cities across the decade, but at very different rates. Dublin remained the most expensive throughout and Warsaw the cheapest, while Lisbon saw much the fastest growth.

Dublin was the costliest city at every date, rising from 1,150 dollars to 1,980 dollars - an increase of 830 dollars, the largest in cash terms. Berlin followed a similar pattern at a lower level, climbing steadily from 780 to 1,240 dollars.

Lisbon stands out. Starting at 520 dollars, below Berlin, it more than doubled to 1,180 dollars by 2025, almost catching Berlin by the end. Warsaw remained the most affordable city throughout, rising from 410 to 690 dollars.

Task AchievementClear overview in the right place, and the answer identifies both the most expensive city and the fastest-growing one - the two findings that matter.
Coherence and CohesionGrouped sensibly, with Lisbon stands out signalling the exception clearly.
Lexical ResourceReasonable range: costliest, in cash terms, more than doubled, most affordable.
GrammarVaried structures with a dash and a participle clause used correctly.

What would lift this: Give Lisbon a figure for its proportional growth to sit against Dublin - roughly 127 per cent against 72 per cent - so the contrast is measured rather than asserted. And almost catching Berlin understates a genuine rank shift worth naming outright.

Band 8Absolute and proportional growth separated, and the convergence named

The table compares average monthly rents for a one-bedroom flat in four European cities at five-year intervals from 2015 to 2025.

Overall, rents rose everywhere, but the pace of that rise varied enough to begin closing the gap between the cheaper cities and the more expensive ones. Dublin remained the most costly market at every date and Warsaw the cheapest, yet the sharpest growth came from neither: Lisbon more than doubled and moved from fourth position to within touching distance of Berlin.

In cash terms Dublin moved furthest, adding 830 dollars to reach 1,980 by 2025. Proportionally, however, this was a rise of roughly seventy per cent - considerably less than Lisbon, where rents climbed some 127 per cent, from 520 to 1,180 dollars.

The two remaining cities changed more predictably. Berlin rose steadily from 780 to 1,240 dollars, keeping second place but seeing its lead over Lisbon shrink from 260 dollars to just 60. Warsaw, consistently the most affordable, increased from 410 to 690 dollars.

Task AchievementThe overview makes a claim about the whole table - convergence - and separates absolute from proportional growth, which is precisely what a table conceals and rewards finding.
Coherence and CohesionOrganised by the size and type of movement rather than by row order, with the reader guided at each turn.
Lexical ResourcePrecise: in cash terms, proportionally, within touching distance, saw its lead shrink. No padding.
GrammarComplex structures handled cleanly - a yet contrast, a colon, and an embedded comparison.

What would lift this: Little. Within touching distance is slightly informal for the register; narrowing to 60 dollars would carry the same point more neutrally.

Table mistakes specifically

  • Reading the grid aloud. The commonest failure by far, and the reason tables produce so many band 6 answers.
  • Skipping the arithmetic. Proportional change is invisible in a table. Thirty seconds of rough division finds the feature everyone else misses.
  • Missing the units. Dollars, thousands, litres per person, per 1,000 people. Tables state the unit once, in the header, and it is easy to lose.
  • Ignoring stability. If one row barely moves while others change sharply, that is a main feature, not an absence of one.
  • Describing every cell. Twelve cells does not mean twelve figures in your answer. Eight well-chosen ones say more.

Now you try

The table below shows average daily water use per person, in litres, in four countries in 2000 and 2020. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. Write at least 150 words in 20 minutes.

Country20002020
United States600520
Spain320270
Egypt180210
India90140
Average daily water use per person (litres)

Before you check your answer

  • Did you spot the split? Two countries fell and two rose - that is your overview, and it is a cleaner one than all four changed.
  • Which country changed most proportionally? India rose by roughly 56 per cent, far more than any other movement in the table.
  • The gap between the highest and lowest narrowed from 510 litres to 380. Did you notice the convergence?
  • Did you avoid explaining why? The table shows use, not cause - no drought, no policy, no development.
  • Are you over 150 words, not counting anything copied from the question?

Where to go next

Ready to practise this with a tutor?

Book a free trial and get your work marked against the official band descriptors.

Book a Free Trial
Scroll to Top