Commuting, cities and the rural divide
A Task 1 bar-chart report and a Task 2 discussion essay, written, self-assessed, and shown beside a real marked response and the target model.
How to use this. Write both tasks in the boxes below, Task 1 in twenty minutes, Task 2 in forty, as in the real test. When you've finished, open Self-assessment to mark your own work against the four criteria and compare it with a real marked submission and the Band 7.5+ model I wrote for it. You can download a copy of everything to keep. For a person to mark your writing against the criteria, the first lesson includes one marked Task 2.
Describe the bar chart.
Recommended 20 minutes · at least 150 words
The bar chart below shows the percentage of adults in four major cities who use three different modes of transport, private car, public transport, and cycling or walking, as their primary means of commuting to work.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
Write the essay.
Recommended 40 minutes · at least 250 words · carries twice the marks
In many countries, the gap between those who live in cities and those who live in rural areas is widening. Urban residents typically enjoy greater access to employment, healthcare, and education, whilst rural communities face increasing deprivation and outward migration of younger generations.
Some argue that governments should prioritise investment in rural infrastructure and services to address this imbalance. Others believe that economic forces are the primary driver of urbanisation and that government intervention is largely ineffective.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Mark your own work.
Be honest with yourself against the four criteria, the same four an examiner uses. Then read the model answers and see exactly what moves a response up a band.
Task Response
Coherence & Cohesion
Lexical Resource
Grammatical Range & Accuracy
A real submission, marked: and the model I wrote for it
Where the marks went. The structure was already at a 7, a real overview, logical grouping by mode, genuine comparison. What held it at 6.5 was precision: loose figure language (a peak is a point, not a span), movement-verb slips (fell at for fell to), and recurring third-person agreement and uncountable errors (per cent, transport).
The target · Band 7.5+ · modelThe bar chart compares the proportion of adults in four cities, London, Tokyo, São Paulo and Sydney, who relied on private cars, public transport, or cycling and walking as their main means of commuting to work in 2023. Overall, public transport was the most popular option in three of the four cities, the clear exception being São Paulo, where the private car prevailed. Active travel, cycling and walking, was consistently the least common mode in every city. Public transport was used most heavily in Tokyo, accounting for 68% of commuters, followed by London and Sydney at 49% and 47% respectively. In São Paulo, by contrast, just over half of adults (51%) travelled by car, while only 35% used public transport. Private car use was broadly similar in London (38%) and Sydney (34%), but markedly lower in Tokyo, at just 22%. Cycling and walking ranged narrowly from 10% in Tokyo to a high of 19% in Sydney, making the Australian city the most active overall.
Why it scores. Accurate figures throughout, a real overview stated twice, grouping by mode rather than a city-by-city walk, and the comparative insight on balance versus disparity, the things the 6.5 reached for but didn't quite land.
Where the marks went. Ambitious, well-built and genuinely interesting, but the second view was reframed rather than answered (the prompt's claim is that intervention is futile because economics drives urbanisation; the essay argued instead for funding cities). That, plus comma splices and a conclusion that didn't crisply restate the position, held it at 6.5. Answering the view as written is the single highest-leverage fix.
The target · Band 7.5+ · model paragraphsRe-answering the second view, as the prompt frames it. Others contend that government intervention is largely futile, since urbanisation is driven by economic forces that public spending cannot reverse. On this view, investing in rural infrastructure merely postpones an inevitable migration: young people will continue to move wherever wages, universities and careers are concentrated, whatever services remain at home. The money spent propping up declining villages, the argument runs, would yield far greater returns if directed at the cities that are already growing.
A conclusion that restates the position. In conclusion, although economic forces undeniably pull people towards cities, I believe governments should still invest in rural areas rather than abandon them to decline. The two approaches need not compete: sustaining rural communities and developing urban centres serve the same end, a population with a genuine choice about where, and how, it wishes to live.
Why it scores. The second view is engaged on its own terms, the reasoning runs as a chain rather than a list, and the conclusion lands the position cleanly, the three moves that separate this from the 6.5.
This is a real Paper 00 submission I marked, anonymised, shown beside the model answer I wrote for it. The first lesson includes one of your own Task 2s, marked the same way.
Take your work with you.
Download your two answers alongside the target models, so you can revise them later or bring them to a lesson.
Next, online: Paper 02, a line graph and an opinion essay.
Send a task. Get it back marked.
A paper tells you the question. It can’t tell you why your answer sits at 6.5.
Write your response to the Task 2 above and send it to me. I’ll mark it in detail against the four assessment criteria and return it to you annotated, line by line, so you can see exactly where the band is sitting and what is holding it down. Written work is handled this way around the lessons, sent over and returned marked between sessions, which keeps the fifty minutes themselves free for speaking. The first lesson is a full assessment. Regular lessons are £20 for fifty minutes, one to one, in proper British English.