An IELTS Writing Task 1 pie chart at Band 6, 7 and 8
Quick answer
This page describes one invented pair of pie charts three times, at Band 6, 7 and 8, with the same overview and the same key features, and marks the phrases that earn or lose marks. For pie charts, the thing that most often separates the bands is whether the report compares the shares across the two charts, with the right word for a share, or only reads out each pie in turn.
In the app, a Task 1 report is marked with a band range for each criterion and a Data Accuracy card, so you can see whether a lost mark came from the chart or from the language.
iOS and Android
Paid app: what it costs · billing and refunds · support
On this page
This page takes one invented pair of pie charts and describes it three times, at Band 6, Band 7 and Band 8. The three reports have the same overview and pick out the same key features. Only the writing changes, so the differences you see belong to the bands and not to what was noticed in the data. How to plan a report on charts like these is explained in the guide to line graphs, bar charts, pie charts and tables; the pie chart is a label from practice material, not an IELTS category.
The three answers were written for this site. They are not from a real paper, they were not marked by IELTS, and they are illustrations to compare against, not answers to memorise. IELTS.org penalises memorised and plagiarised content, and the visual in your exam will be different, so the use of this page is to see what each band looks like.
Key takeaways
- All three answers state the same overview and use the same features. What changes is how exact the overview is, how well the comparisons fit the figures and how accurately the sentences are built.
- The Band 6 answer reads out the first pie, misreports one change and uses “number” for a share.
- The Band 7 answer names the change of leader and compares the same method across both years, with one agreement slip.
- The Band 8 answer turns each comparison into a ratio or a ranking, so that the figures prove the claims.
The task
This task is invented for practice and is not from a past paper. The figures are round and are not real statistics.
The two pie charts show the percentage of household waste in one country that was handled by four different methods in 2005 and in 2025. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The data behind the charts, as a percentage of household waste:
| Method | 2005 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Landfill | 60 | 20 |
| Recycling | 20 | 45 |
| Composting | 5 | 15 |
| Incineration | 15 | 20 |
All three answers rest on the same reading of the charts:
- Overview: landfill was the main method in 2005 but recycling was the main method in 2025, and every other method handled a larger share than before.
- Feature one: landfill fell from 60 to 20 per cent, a third of its earlier figure.
- Feature two: recycling more than doubled, from 20 to 45 per cent, and became the largest.
- Feature three: composting tripled from 5 to 15, while incineration rose only from 15 to 20 and ended level with landfill.
The same pie charts at Band 6, 7 and 8
Hover or tap a marked phrase to see what a marker would note. The legend names the criterion for each colour, and orange marks a slip that loses marks.
Band 6
The two pie charts show the percentage of household waste in one country that was dealt with in four different ways in 2005 and 2025.
Overall, there were big changes between 2005 and 2025, and landfill went down while the other ways went upAn overview is there, but “big changes” is vague and it does not say that recycling became the largest method.
In 2005, 60 per cent of waste went to landfill, 20 per cent was recycled, 15 per cent was burned and 5 per cent was compostedAll four figures of the first pie are read out in order, and nothing is compared. Landfill was the biggest method and recycling was the second biggest. In 2025, landfill was fellVerb form: should be “fell” to 20 per cent, which was a half of the figure in 200560 to 20 is a third, so the comparison misreports the charts. This is a very big change in twenty years.
Recycling increased untilWrong preposition: should be “increased to” 45 per cent, so it became the biggest method. Composting grew from 5 to 15 per cent and alsoTwo additive words in a row; the link adds but does not relate composting to the other methods incineration grew a little, from 15 to 20 per cent. The number of wasteA share is not a number: should be “the percentage of waste” or “the amount of waste” that was recycled was higher than the number that went to landfill. Incineration was the same as landfill in 2025, with 20 per cent each. So we can see that the way of dealing with waste changed a lot in the country.
Band 7
The pie charts compare the proportion of household waste in one country that was landfilled, recycled, composted or incinerated in 2005 and in 2025.
Overall, landfill, which was the main method in 2005, was replaced by recycling in 2025, and every other method accounted for a larger share than beforeOverview names the change of leader and the direction of every other method.
In 2005, landfill accounted forThe natural phrase for a share of a whole 60 per cent of waste, three times the share of recycling at 20 per cent. Composting and incineration were minor at that time, with 5 and 15 per cent. By 2025, howeverThe time link carries the contrast between the two charts, landfill had fallen to 20 per cent, so that it equalled incineration and was well below recyclingA result clause that places three methods in one sentence.
Recycling more than doubled to 45 per cent, which made it the largest method, ahead of landfill and incineration by 25 points. Composting, the smallest method in 2005, rose from 5 to 15 per cent, which are a threefold increaseAgreement: should be “is a threefold increase”, while incineration grew more modestly, from 15 to 20 per cent. Together, these three methods took 80 per cent of waste in 2025, compared with 40 per cent in 2005A combined figure that shows the size of the shift away from landfill.
Band 8
The pie charts show how household waste in one country was divided between landfill, recycling, composting and incineration in 2005 and 2025, as percentages of the total, so that in each year the four methods account for all of the waste.
Overall, landfill was the dominant method in 2005 but had been overtaken by recycling by 2025, with every other method gaining groundNames the change of leader and the direction of the rest in one sentence, with no figures to pre-empt the detail.
Landfill took 60 per cent of waste in 2005, three times as much as recycling, and composting and incineration together handled barely a fifth of it, yet by 2025 it had shrunk to a third of that figureExact: 20 against 60 is one third, and “shrunk” says it was a steady loss, level with incineration at 20 per cent.
Recycling made the opposite journeyPoints back at the fall of landfill and turns to the next stage, so no connector is needed, more than doubling from 20 to 45 per cent to become the leading method, 25 points clear of both landfill and incinerationA change and its effect on the ranking in one phrase, while composting, a marginal 5 per cent in 2005, tripled to 15A contrasting clause with an inserted noun phrase, punctuated cleanly. Incineration alone barely movedOpens with a contrast, so it needs no additive link, rising by five percentage points to 20 per cent, so the main shift was from landfill to recycling and composting, which now handle 60 per cent between them.
What moved the band
The accounts below follow the public band descriptors, as this site paraphrases them. Each quotation comes from the answer of the band named in its sentence.
Task Achievement
The Band 6 report has an overview and covers the right features, but it reads out a pie and gets one comparison wrong. In Band 6, “60 per cent of waste went to landfill, 20 per cent was recycled, 15 per cent was burned and 5 per cent was composted” gives all four figures of the first chart and compares none of them, and “a half of the figure in 2005” misreports a fall from 60 to 20. Its overview offers “big changes” and never says that recycling took the lead.
Band 7 commits to the change that matters: “landfill, which was the main method in 2005, was replaced by recycling in 2025”. Each method is then compared across the two years, and “Together, these three methods took 80 per cent of waste in 2025, compared with 40 per cent in 2005” shows the size of the shift.
Band 8 turns each comparison into a ranking or a ratio that a reader can check. “more than doubling from 20 to 45 per cent to become the leading method, 25 points clear of both landfill and incineration” gives the change and its effect on the order in one phrase. The Task Achievement cell at Band 7 holds the wording this account paraphrases.
Coherence and Cohesion
The Band 6 report is organised, but its links are thin. In Band 6, “and also” stacks two additive words between composting and incineration, and the closing sentence “So we can see that the way of dealing with waste changed a lot in the country” restates the vague overview.
Band 7 uses time links that do real work: “By 2025, however” carries the contrast between the two charts, and each paragraph keeps to one group of methods.
Band 8 hands over without labels. “Recycling made the opposite journey” points back at the fall of landfill and turns to the next stage, and “Incineration alone barely moved” opens with its contrast. The Coherence and Cohesion cell at Band 6 describes the bolted-on pattern.
Lexical Resource
The Band 6 vocabulary is wide enough for the charts and shows attempts that miss: “The number of waste” uses a word for things you can count with a share, and “dealt with in four different ways” repeats a plain phrase where a precise noun was available.
Band 7 chooses words that fit shares. “accounted for” is the natural phrase for a part of a whole, and the report varies “share”, “proportion” and “percentage” correctly.
Band 8 states the size of a change in the word itself. “shrunk to a third of that figure” gives both the direction and the scale, and “gaining ground” in the overview says that the other methods rose without repeating the same verb. The Lexical Resource cell at Band 7 describes this control.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
The Band 6 report mixes simple and complex sentences, and its slips are small: in Band 6, “was fell” combines two verb forms, and “increased until 45 per cent” takes the wrong preposition for a change to a level.
Band 7 shows more than one kind of complex sentence. “so that it equalled incineration and was well below recycling” places three methods in a result clause, though “which are a threefold increase” slips on agreement.
Band 8 widens the range and almost every sentence is clean. “while composting, a marginal 5 per cent in 2005, tripled to 15” holds an inserted noun phrase inside a contrast, and the commas set the pace. Compare the Grammatical Range and Accuracy cell at Band 8.
Traps this task sets
These come from the guide to line graphs, bar charts, pie charts and tables, and each is visible in the Band 6 answer.
- Reading out one pie at a time. With two pies the comparison is the change in shares. The Band 6 paragraph on 2005 lists four figures and then stops.
- Misjudging a fall. Sixty per cent down to twenty is a third of the earlier figure, not a half. Check each ratio against the table before you write it.
- The wrong word for a share. A percentage of waste is not a number of waste. Use percentage, proportion or share for the whole, and keep number for things you can count.
- Forgetting that the shares add up. The four methods make up all the waste each year, so when landfill falls, the others must rise. Say so once, in the overview.
How to use these answers
Write your own report on the same charts first, in 20 minutes. Then read the three answers against yours, one paragraph at a time, and ask which band your paragraph resembles on each of the four criteria.
Next, mark your own script with the same codes: where you stated the overview, where one method was compared across the two years, where a word fitted the data exactly and which slips a marker would circle. Check every ratio you wrote against the table. Do not memorise any sentence from these pages: IELTS.org penalises memorised content, and the visual in the exam will not match this one.
How the app marks it
IELTS Mentor AI marks a Task 1 report with a band range for each of the four criteria, from a strict to a lenient reading, followed by what worked and how to improve for each criterion. A Data Accuracy card separates a misread chart from a language mistake. The editor is timed at 20:00 with a live word count against the 150 minimum.
Where this fits
This page belongs to the guide to line graphs, bar charts, pie charts and tables, which explains how to plan a report, and to the Writing test format guide, which covers the whole test. The same exercise is done for the other visuals: line graph, bar chart, table, process diagram, map and two charts. For the Task 1 practice tool, see Writing Task 1 practice, and for how the Writing score is built, see how the IELTS Writing score is calculated.
Frequently asked questions
Are these IELTS Writing Task 1 pie chart answers from a real paper?
No. They were written for this site, on invented charts with round figures, and IELTS did not mark them. The band each one illustrates is the site's reading of the public band descriptors, not a score that any examiner gave.
How do I describe two pie charts without listing every slice?
Compare the same slice across the charts and report the biggest changes, in the order of importance. IELTS.org allows minor details to be left out, and a report that reads out both pies in turn shows no selection and no comparison.
Should I use percentage, proportion, share or number?
Use the word that fits the data. Shares of a whole are a percentage, a proportion or a share, and a number is for things you can count. IELTS.org sets no word list, but Lexical Resource looks for the word that fits the figures.
Will the exam give me pie charts?
IELTS publishes no list of chart types to expect. IELTS.org says Academic Task 1 may show one or more graphs, charts or tables, or a diagram. Pie charts are a practice shape on this site, not a promised one.
Practise this with instant AI feedback
Record your answer in the app and get your grammar, vocabulary, fluency and pronunciation analysed in seconds.
Paid app: what it costs · billing and refunds · support