1. Read two measures as one task
Mixed charts create a selection problem: you must cover both sources while keeping their units separate. The presence of two visuals does not require two unrelated mini-reports. Look for a defensible connection, such as a common place or period, then build a single overview that acknowledges the main feature of each. This lesson combines travel-mode shares with a journey-time measure. It is different from a guide to one chart shape because the central skill is deciding what can, and cannot, be compared across sources.
Original practice task
The visual information shows the main commuting modes used in the fictional city of Northport in 2015 and 2025, together with the average duration of public transport journeys in those years. Summarise the main features and make relevant comparisons. Write at least 150 words.
| Measure | 2015 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Car, share of commuters | 60% | 45% |
| Public transport, share of commuters | 25% | 35% |
| Active travel, share of commuters | 15% | 20% |
| Average public transport journey | 38 minutes | 32 minutes |
2. Build a bridge without inventing a cause
Start with the common frame: both sets describe Northport and compare the same two years. Next label the different measures. The bars represent percentages of all commuters, classified by their main mode. The journey figures apply only to commuters using public transport and measure minutes. You cannot compare 35% with 32 minutes as if one were larger in any meaningful sense.
The dominant pattern is a shift away from the car, although it remains the largest individual category. Public transport and active travel both gain share. Separately, the average public transport trip becomes shorter. These patterns can appear in the same overview without claiming that shorter trips caused passengers to change mode. We have no fare information, route map, service frequency or survey of reasons.
A practical four-paragraph plan is: introduce both measures; summarise the travel shift and shorter public transport duration; compare the three shares; then explain the journey-time change. Give the smaller source enough detail to be represented accurately, but do not inflate it into half the report. Here it contains only two figures, so a short final paragraph is proportionate. A detail paragraph could also combine the public transport share and time, provided the reader can still follow the unit change.
Try your own response
Your writing stays in this page only. It is not submitted or saved. Copy your draft before leaving. The word counter checks approximate length, not quality.
3. Study the original mixed-chart report
This model demonstrates selection and measurement discipline. It is not an examiner-scored answer and does not claim a band. Its explanation remains descriptive: the two datasets show related aspects of travel, not evidence of why travellers made their choices.
Read the original model response
The information compares the main commuting modes used in Northport in 2015 and 2025 and gives the average duration of public transport journeys in the same years. Mode choice is expressed as a percentage of commuters, while journey duration is measured in minutes.
Overall, the car remained the most common individual commuting mode, although its share decreased considerably. Both alternatives gained ground, and public transport journeys became shorter on average during the period.
In 2015, cars accounted for 60% of commuters, compared with 25% for public transport and 15% for active travel. Ten years later, the car figure had fallen by 15 percentage points to 45%. Public transport rose to 35%, a gain of ten percentage points, while walking and cycling together increased to 20%. Consequently, the combined share of the two alternatives exceeded that of cars in 2025, reversing the earlier balance.
The average journey on public transport lasted 38 minutes in 2015 and 32 minutes in 2025, a reduction of six minutes. This change accompanied the increase in public transport’s share, but the information does not establish a causal relationship between the two developments.
The overview says “individual” because cars lead each separate mode in both years, yet the alternatives combined overtake them. That one adjective avoids an apparent contradiction. The final paragraph uses “accompanied”, which places developments together without turning coincidence into proof. The model reports a six-minute reduction rather than an invented improvement in reliability; an average duration cannot reveal how consistently vehicles arrive.
4. Solve two cross-source editing problems
Exercise A: repair the comparison
Revise this sentence: “Public transport was 35%, which was higher than its journey time of 32, so it became the most popular choice.” Identify both the measurement problem and the ranking problem before writing a replacement.
Check a worked solution
A sound revision is: “Public transport accounted for 35% of commuters in 2025, while its average journey time was 32 minutes.” Percentages and minutes cannot be ranked against each other. Public transport was also not the most popular individual mode: cars retained a 45% share. Add that comparison separately if it supports your paragraph’s purpose.
Exercise B: remove an unsupported explanation
Revise this sentence without losing either observed change: “Faster trains persuaded ten per cent of people to stop driving.” Check the transport category, the type of change and the causal verb.
Check a worked solution
A defensible version is: “Public transport’s share increased by ten percentage points, while average journey duration fell by six minutes.” The data include public transport generally, not trains alone. A ten-point share increase is not necessarily ten per cent of the same people moving from cars. The two surveys might cover different commuter populations, and no reasons are supplied.
5. Run a mixed-chart coverage check
Underline every noun attached to a figure in your draft. “Commuters” and “journeys” are not interchangeable, and “share” is not an absolute headcount. Because total commuter numbers are absent, a falling car share does not prove that fewer car trips occurred. The city might have gained commuters overall. This limit should shape your wording even when you do not explicitly discuss it.
For a second attempt, use only one numerical comparison per sentence. This is a practice constraint, not an exam rule. It forces you to decide which values belong together and prevents a long string of figures from hiding the main contrast. Then join two sentences only where the connection is genuinely helpful. Finally, check that your overview includes a feature from each source and that your conclusion, if you wrote one, does not introduce advice about transport policy. Academic Task 1 asks you to report the supplied information, not recommend what Northport should do next.
Format reference checked on 15 October 2026: official IELTS Academic Writing guidance. All prompts, models, data and exercises here are original teaching material. This independent page is not an official past paper or an examiner-marked answer.