Five countries, five energy stories, and the end of the petrol engine
A Task 1 stacked bar chart comparing five countries' energy supply and a Task 2 two-part essay on the shift to electric vehicles, written, self-assessed, and shown beside the Band 7.5+ models, with the moves that earn the marks.
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 have finished, open Self-assessment to mark your own work against the four criteria, then compare it with the Band 7.5+ models and the notes on exactly what lifts a response up a band. 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 chart.
Recommended 20 minutes · at least 150 words
The chart below shows how the total primary energy supply of five major economies, China, India, Germany, Brazil and France, was made up of different sources in 2024. The figures are percentages of each country's total energy use, so each bar adds up to one hundred per cent.
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
Over the past decade, sales of electric vehicles have risen sharply, and several major economies have set targets to phase out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by around 2035. Some commentators describe this transition as both inevitable and desirable, while others raise concerns about its costs, its dependence on critical minerals, its impact on existing industries, and the burden it may place on consumers and developing countries.
Is this transition inevitable, and is it desirable?
Mark your own work.
Be honest with yourself against the four criteria, the same four an examiner uses. Then read the model answers and the notes on exactly what moves a response up a band.
Task Response
Coherence & Cohesion
Lexical Resource
Grammatical Range & Accuracy
The Band 7.5+ models, and what earns the marks
What the task wants. A stacked bar chart comparing composition, so the skill is selection, not full coverage. The biggest trap is describing all six sources for all five countries, which produces a flat list with no shape. A Band 7.5 opens with an overview that captures the big picture (the profiles are strikingly diverse, with no single typical pattern), then picks out the dominant source for each country and the most telling comparisons, quoting figures to support them.
The target · Band 7.5+ · modelThe chart compares the make-up of primary energy supply in five economies in 2024, with each country's total broken down by source. Overall, the most striking feature is how different the five profiles are: each country depends on a distinctive dominant source, so no single pattern is typical. China and India are the most alike, both relying heavily on coal, which supplies 55 per cent and 52 per cent of their energy respectively, followed in each case by oil and gas; low-carbon sources play only a minor role in either. The three remaining countries each lead in a different area. France is dominated by nuclear power, which alone accounts for 65 per cent of its supply, while its use of coal is negligible at just 2 per cent. Brazil draws almost half of its energy, 47 per cent, from hydropower, reflecting its geography. Germany, by contrast, stands out for renewables, generating 42 per cent of its supply from wind and solar, far more than any other country shown. In every case, the remaining sources account for comparatively small shares.
Why it scores. An overview that captures the key idea (diverse profiles, no typical pattern) before any figure is quoted; the dominant source selected for each country rather than every segment listed; comparison built in throughout (respectively, far more than, by contrast, negligible); and figures used to support the points rather than to fill the answer.
Where weaker responses lose marks. Describing all six sources for all five countries, which flattens the answer into a list with no main idea; giving no overview; and quoting numbers mechanically (coal is 55, oil is 26, nuclear is 3…) without the comparisons the task asks for.
What the task wants. Two distinct questions, both of which must be answered: inevitability asks whether the change will happen regardless of preference (a prediction), while desirability asks whether it ought to happen (a value judgement). The two are independent, you can argue inevitable but undesirable, or desirable but not yet inevitable, and a response that conflates them or answers only one is penalised under Task Response. State a view on each in the introduction, develop each, and draw them together at the end.
The target · Band 7.5+ · model paragraphsIntroduction. Electric vehicles have moved rapidly from novelty to mainstream, and several governments now intend to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars within little more than a decade. In my view the shift to electric transport is by now largely inevitable, and, despite some real costs, it is on balance a desirable one.
Inevitability. That the transition will happen, regardless of individual preference, is increasingly hard to dispute. Major markets have set firm phase-out dates in law, manufacturers have committed enormous investment to electric models while winding down combustion-engine development, and battery costs continue to fall as charging networks expand. Once the largest economies and carmakers move in the same direction, smaller markets tend to follow, if only because the new vehicles available to them are increasingly electric by default. The momentum now appears self-reinforcing.
Desirability. Whether the change ought to happen is a separate question, and here the picture is more mixed. The environmental case is strong, since road transport is a major source of both carbon emissions and urban air pollution, and electrification reduces each. Yet there are genuine costs: the batteries depend on critical minerals whose extraction carries its own environmental and human price, the purchase cost can place electric cars beyond poorer households, and the shift threatens jobs in established industries. These concerns are serious, but they argue for managing the transition well, through recycling, subsidies and retraining, rather than for abandoning it.
Conclusion. In conclusion, the move to electric vehicles seems to me both inevitable and, provided its costs are managed carefully, desirable. The realistic task is therefore not to debate whether it should happen, but to ensure that its burdens are shared fairly between industries, consumers and countries.
Why it scores. Both questions answered, and kept clearly apart, with a stated view on each; the predictive judgement (inevitability) supported with concrete drivers and the normative one (desirability) weighed honestly; the two drawn together in the conclusion; and accurate topic lexis (phase-out, critical minerals, charging networks) used without strain.
Where weaker responses lose marks. Treating the two questions as one and answering only "is it good?"; conflating "will happen" with "should happen"; and the recurring Task 2 ceiling, comma splices joining two full sentences with only a comma, which holds an otherwise strong essay at 6.5 on accuracy.
These are model answers I wrote for this paper, shown with the criterion marks they would earn and the reasons. The first lesson includes one of your own Task 2s, marked the same way against the four criteria and returned annotated, line by line.
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.
Earlier, online: Paper 11, a library floor plan and a positive-or-negative-development essay · Paper 10, a butterfly life-cycle diagram and an effects-and-evaluation essay · Paper 09, a hydroelectric-dam diagram and a causes-and-solutions essay · all twelve papers.
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.