Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-11-05

IELTS Writing Task 1 question

The graph below shows the perceived danger and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

Perceived and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime: by crime type

Student answer (Band 5.0)

The bar chart illustrate differences between in perceived danger and actual liklihood of being a victim of crime by specifying three types of crime.

Overall , the perceived crime recorded high in 2009/10 while it fell sharply next year. Similarly , actual crime figure was low in comparing others

The graph describes that car precived crime was at peak proportion 22% in 2009 while it went down in 2010 at 17%. Like wise burglary perceived crime was at 15% and drop down to 12% same as violent crime but actual crime reached at high propotion 5% in cars crim in comparing with others two was at lowest proportion. The car crime went down in 2010.

The main features in this graph is that car crime remained at highest proportion in both types and violent and burglary crime remained same in both years while actual crime proportion was at low. All crimes went down in next year while only car crime remain same in both years.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.0

You identify the chart’s three crime categories and make a useful overall observation that perceived risk was much higher than actual victimisation. You also correctly note that car crime had the highest perceived figure and that perceived car crime fell from about 22% to 17%. However, the account is only partial and some comparisons are unclear or inaccurate: perceived burglary and violent crime did not both fall to 12%, and actual car crime stayed at roughly 4.5% rather than going down. The overview also says all crimes fell, although actual figures rose slightly in each category. To strengthen the response, report the broad contrast between perceived and actual rates, then compare the changes in each series accurately and selectively.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 4.5

The response has an opening, an overview and two further paragraphs, so there is an attempt to organise the information. However, progression is weak: the final paragraph repeats that car crime was highest and actual crime was low without adding a clear new comparison. Linking phrases such as “Similarly,” “Likewise” and “while” are used, but some connections are unclear, particularly “while actual crime proportion was at low” and “All crimes went down in next year.” This makes relationships between the figures difficult to follow. Group the perceived figures together and the actual figures together, or compare both years within each crime type, and use clear references to distinguish the two series.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use some relevant chart vocabulary, including “proportion,” “highest” and “actual crime,” and the reader can generally identify the topic and categories. However, the range is limited and several word choices or collocations are inaccurate, such as “perceived crime recorded high,” “at peak proportion,” and “actual crime figure was low in comparing others.” Spelling errors, including “liklihood,” “precived” and “propotion,” also reduce clarity and control. Aim for precise reporting language such as “the perceived likelihood was highest” and “the actual rate was lower than the perceived rate.” Check spelling carefully and avoid repeating “crime” where “figure,” “rate” or “percentage” would be clearer.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

The response includes simple statements and attempts some longer comparisons, but the range of sentence structures is limited and errors occur frequently. For example, “The bar chart illustrate” has subject–verb disagreement, while “Overall, the perceived crime recorded high” lacks a clear grammatical construction. In “The graph describes that car precived crime was at peak proportion,” the clause pattern is awkward, and several sentences omit articles or use incomplete comparisons, as in “actual crime figure was low in comparing others.” These errors sometimes make the intended relationships hard to understand. Practise accurate subject–verb agreement, articles and comparative sentence patterns, then check each sentence for a clear subject and verb.

See this exact question answered at other band scores. The same prompt compared across bands.

Browse more IELTS Writing model answers or get your own writing scored by the same AI examiner.