IELTS Academic Writing Task 1 – Sample Test 23 (Radar Chart)
Task Question
The radar chart below compares the level of urban mobility satisfaction in 2024 across six dimensions — walking, cycling, bus, metro, ride-hailing, and parking — between City Alpha and City Beta.
Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
Figure: Urban mobility satisfaction levels in City Alpha and City Beta (2024)
Sample Answer (Band 8.0–8.5)
The radar chart illustrates satisfaction scores, on a ten-point scale, for six aspects of urban mobility in City Alpha and City Beta in 2024. Overall, Alpha residents expressed higher satisfaction with walking and metro services, while Beta scored more favorably in bus, ride-hailing, and parking.
City Alpha achieved its strongest ratings in metro transport (around 9) and walking facilities (8.5). Cycling was also relatively well regarded at 7, though Alpha lagged behind in parking provision (just 4) and ride-hailing (5.5). Bus services, at 6, were only moderately rated.
In contrast, City Beta demonstrated a different pattern. Its highest satisfaction was recorded for ride-hailing (8) and parking (6.5). Bus services also performed comparatively strongly at 7.5. However, Beta’s scores for walking (6) and cycling (5) were markedly lower than those of Alpha.
To sum up, the chart highlights complementary strengths: Alpha excels in public transit and pedestrian infrastructure, whereas Beta performs better in private transport convenience. This contrast underscores differing urban planning priorities in the two cities.
Analytical Review – IELTS Academic Writing Task 1 (Test 23, Radar Chart)
Overall Verdict
Indicative band: 8.0–8.5
- Task Achievement: Covers all six mobility modes with a balanced overview highlighting complementary strengths of Alpha and Beta.
- Coherence & Cohesion: Smooth sequencing: Alpha’s strong suits → Beta’s advantages → integrated summary.
- Lexical Resource: Advanced use of topic-specific terms like “pedestrian infrastructure,” “ride-hailing convenience,” “urban planning priorities.”
- Grammar: Accurate range: passives, comparatives, and nominalisation for higher formality.
Key Weaknesses
- Quantification: Satisfaction levels (e.g., 8.5 vs 6) were noted but not always emphasised with comparative phrases such as “nearly 50% higher.”
- Comparisons: Some contrasts could be sharper, especially metro vs bus differences.
- Sentence density: A few sentences were lengthy and might be clearer if split.
- Analytical depth: Broader socio-economic implications of transport choices (e.g., sustainability, congestion) not explored.
Actionable Improvements (High-Impact)
- Quantify contrasts: Example: “Alpha’s metro score of 9 was almost 50% higher than Beta’s 6.”
- Highlight trade-offs: Pair opposites (e.g., “As Beta excelled in ride-hailing, it underperformed in walking and cycling”).
- Shorten sentences: Split long descriptive clauses for sharper readability.
- Deepen analysis: Link strong pedestrian facilities to health/sustainability; parking convenience to car dependency.
- Use variety: Replace repeated terms like “satisfaction” with “approval,” “rating,” or “evaluation.”
Stronger Synonyms (Topic-Fit)
- satisfaction → approval rating evaluation
- increase → climb improve gain
- decrease → drop fall off deteriorate
- strengths → advantages superiorities
- weaknesses → drawbacks limitations
Linking Devices (Cohesion)
- Contrast: whereas, by contrast, in comparison, on the other hand
- Addition: moreover, in addition, similarly, likewise
- Result: therefore, consequently, as a result, thus
- Time: initially, subsequently, over the period, in 2024
- Emphasis: notably, strikingly, critically, above all
- Quant cues: nearly doubled, significantly higher, marginally lower
High-Value Collocations (Transport Context)
Rewrite Upgrades (Band-9 polish)
-
Original: “Alpha’s metro was rated highly at 9.”
Upgrade: “Metro services in Alpha achieved an outstanding score of 9, nearly 50% above Beta’s equivalent rating.” -
Original: “Beta performed well in ride-hailing.”
Upgrade: “Ride-hailing in Beta was rated at a notably superior level, reflecting its stronger reliance on private-sector transport solutions.” -
Original: “Parking was low in Alpha.”
Upgrade: “Parking provision in Alpha lagged considerably behind, receiving one of the lowest scores at only 4 points.”
Model Sentences (Precise Quantification)
- “Alpha’s metro system scored 9, compared with Beta’s 6, marking a striking difference of three points.”
- “Satisfaction with walking in Alpha was nearly 40% higher than in Beta (8.5 vs 6).”
- “Beta’s ride-hailing rating of 8 exceeded Alpha’s by 2.5 points, reflecting contrasting priorities.”
Grammar Targets
- Comparatives: “X was nearly twice as high as Y.”
- Passives: “The service was rated significantly higher in Beta.”
- Nominalisation: “A substantial disparity was observed between metro and bus satisfaction.”
- Adverbials: “strikingly superior,” “markedly lower,” “considerably stronger.”
Quick Checklist (Before Submit)
- Overview covers both cities’ strengths and weaknesses clearly.
- Numbers are compared explicitly with strong quantifiers.
- Advanced vocabulary avoids repetition of “satisfaction.”
- Sentences are clear, balanced between complex and concise.
- Collocations tightly aligned with urban transport context.
تحلیل دوزبانه – IELTS Academic Writing Task 1 (Test 23, Radar Chart)
ارزیابی کلی
نمره تقریبی: 8.0 تا 8.5
- پوشش کامل شش حالت جابجایی (پیادهروی، دوچرخه، اتوبوس، مترو، تاکسی اینترنتی و پارکینگ)
- انسجام توصیف: ابتدا مزایای آلفا → سپس برتریهای بتا → در نهایت جمعبندی کلی
- واژگان پیشرفته مثل «زیرساخت پیادهروی»، «تسهیلات دوچرخه»، «اولویتهای برنامهریزی شهری»
- گرامر دقیق شامل مجهولها، مقایسهها و اسمسازی برای رسمیت بیشتر
Overall Verdict
Indicative band: 8.0–8.5
- Task Achievement: Covers all six mobility modes with a balanced overview highlighting complementary strengths of Alpha and Beta.
- Coherence & Cohesion: Smooth sequencing: Alpha’s strong suits → Beta’s advantages → integrated summary.
- Lexical Resource: Advanced use of topic-specific terms like “pedestrian infrastructure,” “ride-hailing convenience,” “urban planning priorities.”
- Grammar: Accurate range: passives, comparatives, and nominalisation for higher formality.
نقاط ضعف
- کمبود تأکید عددی؛ مثلاً اختلاف ۸.۵ در مقابل ۶ میتوانست با عباراتی مثل «۵۰٪ بالاتر» بیان شود
- مقایسهها در بخش مترو و اتوبوس نیازمند وضوح بیشتر هستند
- چند جمله طولانی که میتوان آنها را سادهتر نوشت
- ابعاد اجتماعی-اقتصادی (مثل پایداری و ترافیک) بهقدر کافی برجسته نشدند
Key Weaknesses
- Quantification: Satisfaction levels (e.g., 8.5 vs 6) were noted but not always emphasized with comparative phrases such as “nearly 50% higher.”
- Comparisons: Some contrasts could be sharper, especially metro vs bus differences.
- Sentence density: A few sentences were lengthy and might be clearer if split.
- Analytical depth: Broader socio-economic implications of transport choices (e.g., sustainability, congestion) not explored.
پیشنهادهای بهبود
- بیان کمی دقیقتر: «متروی آلفا با امتیاز ۹ تقریباً ۵۰٪ بالاتر از بتا با امتیاز ۶ بود»
- جفتسازی افت و رشد: «در حالی که بتا در تاکسی اینترنتی برتر بود، در پیادهروی و دوچرخهسواری ضعیفتر عمل کرد»
- کوتاه کردن جملههای طولانی برای خوانایی بیشتر
- اتصال تحلیل به پایداری، سلامت و وابستگی به خودرو
- تنوع در واژگان برای جایگزینی مکرر satisfaction با approval, rating, evaluation
Actionable Improvements
- Quantify contrasts: Example: “Alpha’s metro score of 9 was almost 50% higher than Beta’s 6.”
- Highlight trade-offs: Pair opposites (e.g., “As Beta excelled in ride-hailing, it underperformed in walking and cycling”).
- Shorten sentences: Split long descriptive clauses for sharper readability.
- Deepen analysis: Link strong pedestrian facilities to health/sustainability; parking convenience to car dependency.
- Use variety: Replace repeated terms like “satisfaction” with “approval,” “rating,” or “evaluation.”
مترادفهای قوی
- رضایت → approval, rating, evaluation
- افزایش → climb, improve, gain
- کاهش → drop, fall off, deteriorate
- نقاط قوت → advantages, superiorities
- نقاط ضعف → drawbacks, limitations
Stronger Synonyms
- satisfaction → approval, rating, evaluation
- increase → climb, improve, gain
- decrease → drop, fall off, deteriorate
- strengths → advantages, superiorities
- weaknesses → drawbacks, limitations
حروف ربط
- تضاد: whereas, by contrast, unlike
- افزودن: moreover, in addition, likewise
- نتیجه: therefore, consequently, as a result
- زمان: initially, subsequently, in 2024
Linking Devices
- Contrast: whereas, by contrast, in comparison, on the other hand
- Addition: moreover, in addition, similarly, likewise
- Result: therefore, consequently, as a result, thus
- Time: initially, subsequently, over the period, in 2024
- Emphasis: notably, strikingly, critically, above all
- Quant cues: nearly doubled, significantly higher, marginally lower
کالوکیشنهای کلیدی
- زیرساخت پیادهروی → pedestrian infrastructure
- امکانات دوچرخه → cycling amenities
- سهولت تاکسی اینترنتی → ride-hailing convenience
- کارآمدی حملونقل عمومی → public transit efficiency
- تأمین پارکینگ → parking provision
- اولویتهای برنامهریزی شهری → urban planning priorities
- شاخص رضایت جابجایی → mobility satisfaction index
High-Value Collocations
- pedestrian infrastructure
- cycling amenities
- ride-hailing convenience
- public transit efficiency
- parking provision
- urban planning priorities
- mobility satisfaction index