Task 1
You should spend about 20 minutes on this task.
The graph below shows the percentage of household energy supplied by four different sources in one European country between 1990 and 2020.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
| 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coal | 38 | 31 | 24 | 17 | 11 | 6 | 3 |
| Natural gas | 27 | 33 | 40 | 45 | 47 | 44 | 39 |
| Electricity (grid) | 30 | 31 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 35 | 38 |
| Solar and heat pumps | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 14 | 20 |
Write at least 150 words.
Task 2
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Some people believe that as machines become capable of performing skilled professional work, such as diagnosing illness or drafting legal documents, governments should limit how far this technology is allowed to replace human workers. Others argue that restricting such technology would deprive society of its benefits and that workers should instead be helped to adapt.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
What a Band 8–9 response must demonstrate
Measured against the four official assessment criteria — specific to this test's two tasks.
Task Achievement
- Gives a clear overview that captures the two big stories: coal's steady collapse and the rise of solar and heat pumps — and notes that gas rose and then fell back after 2010.
- Selects and groups the data rather than narrating every year for every source; a Band 8+ answer chooses the key turning points (gas peaking around 2010; solar overtaking coal between 2010 and 2015).
- Supports every main feature with accurate figures (e.g. coal 38% → 3%; solar 0% → 20%) and uses them to compare, not just to list.
- Stays purely descriptive: no reasons, no opinions about energy policy.
Coherence & Cohesion
- Organises logically — typically an introduction, an overview, then one body paragraph on the declining/reversing sources and one on the rising sources, rather than one paragraph per line.
- Uses referencing ("this source", "the latter", "over the same period") so that sentences connect without repeating the four names every time.
- Cohesive devices appear where they do work ("in contrast", "by 2020", "whereas") and are not stacked mechanically at the start of every sentence.
Lexical Resource
- Uses precise trend language with the right strength: coal plummeted/fell steadily; gas climbed, peaked and then dipped; solar grew from virtually nothing.
- Varies the vocabulary of proportion: share, proportion, percentage, accounted for, made up — and avoids repeating "increase" and "decrease" throughout.
- Keeps register neutral and academic; no informal phrasing such as "went way up".
Grammatical Range & Accuracy
- Controls a range of structures: comparative clauses ("more than twice as much as"), participle phrases ("having peaked at 47% in 2010, gas…"), and complex sentences with "while/whereas".
- Uses past tenses consistently for the dated period, with "by 2020" constructions handled accurately.
- Punctuates comparisons and figures correctly (38%, not '38 percent %'); the majority of sentences are error-free.
Task Response
- Addresses both views fully — the case for limiting replacement and the case for adaptation — rather than giving the second view a single sentence.
- States a clear personal position that is explicit in the introduction and conclusion and is sustained throughout, not simply "both sides have a point".
- Develops each view with a specific, relevant illustration (e.g. how a diagnostic tool changes a doctor's role; what retraining would actually involve) rather than generalities about "technology".
- Engages with the skilled professional framing of the question — not a generic essay about robots taking factory jobs.
Coherence & Cohesion
- A clear four- or five-paragraph structure in which each body paragraph has one controlling idea and a topic sentence that signals it.
- Ideas progress: the essay builds from the strongest argument on each side to a reasoned judgement, rather than listing points in random order.
- Cohesion is achieved through referencing and logical sequencing, not a linker at the start of every sentence ("Firstly… Secondly… Moreover… Furthermore…").
Lexical Resource
- Uses precise, topic-appropriate vocabulary: automation, displacement, redeployment, retraining, liability, regulatory oversight, productivity gains.
- Paraphrases the prompt in the introduction instead of copying it ("limit how far this technology is allowed to replace" → "restrict the extent of automation in the professions").
- Uses less common collocations naturally ("bear the brunt of", "a blunt instrument", "phase in") without forcing in rare words for their own sake.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy
- A mix of complex structures under control: conditionals ("If regulators were to cap…"), concession ("Although restrictions may protect…"), and relative clauses.
- Accurate handling of modal verbs for hedged argument ("may", "is likely to", "would"), which the question's speculative topic demands.
- Punctuation supports complex sentences — commas around subordinate clauses, no comma splices — and errors are rare and never impede meaning.
Common traps for this specific test
The mistakes most likely to cost marks on these two questions.
Natural gas is the only source that rises and then falls (peaking at 47% in 2010 before dropping to 39%). Describing it simply as "increasing" misreads the data and costs Task Achievement marks; a strong answer treats the peak as a key feature.
Many candidates open with "The graph shows four energy sources" and move straight to figures. The overview must state the main trends in general terms (coal falling sharply, renewables rising from nothing, gas peaking) before any numbers appear.
With seven dates and four lines there are 28 data points. Listing them mechanically produces a long, flat report with no selection. Pick the start, the end, and the turning points.
The data is a percentage share, not total energy used. Writing "households used more electricity" is inaccurate — the electricity share grew; total consumption is unknown.
Adding reasons ("because of climate policy") is irrelevant to Task 1 and wastes words. The task is to describe and compare, not to account for the changes.
The question is specifically about skilled professional work. Essays that drift into factory automation or self-checkout tills fail to address the actual prompt.
A discussion essay needs balanced treatment of both positions before your own view. Spending three paragraphs on adaptation and one sentence on limits caps Task Response at Band 6.
Your position must be clear from the introduction and sustained. Revealing it only in the last line reads as an afterthought and weakens the argument's coherence.