Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · 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 5.5)

The graph illustrates how the percieved danger and real likelihood of being a victim of crime between 2009 to 2011. Overall, there are three crimes in that bar graph which are bulglarly, car crime and violent crime while percieved of being a victim of car crime lead the graph at the 20%.

At the beginning, bulglarly crime percieved victims was at the 15% but the actual victims were only below 3% in 2009/10. With the contrast in 2010/11 it slightly rises up to 3%. Furthermore, car crime had the sharp rate in 2009/11 but the actual victims of that particular crime is below 5% ,therefore percieved victims had been notable fall in 2010/11 and actual victims were slightly same. Moreover, violent crime had large number of percieved victims which was at 15% and actual victims were dramatic lower as compared to actual victims in 2009/10. Whereas in 2010/11 actual victims are steadily high from previous year.

To sum up all, actual victims of crime was notable decline as contrast to the percieved victims.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

You identify all three crime types and make a relevant overall comparison: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation. You also report the broad pattern that car crime has the highest perceived figure and that actual rates are low. However, the overview is incomplete and partly inaccurate: perceived car crime is highest in both years, but it falls from about 21% to 17%, rather than simply “lead[ing] the graph at the 20%.” The final claim that actual victims “decline” is not supported, since actual rates rise slightly or remain stable across the categories. Several comparisons are vague, and the car-crime figures and year-to-year changes are not clearly described. Select the main trends accurately and support them with a few precise comparisons.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a basic structure, moving from an introduction and overview to crime-by-crime details and a closing statement. Sequencing words such as “Furthermore,” “Moreover,” and “Whereas” show an effort to connect ideas. However, progression is not consistently clear: the overview combines the list of categories with a single peak, while the body shifts between perceived and actual figures without a consistent comparison pattern. Some linking phrases are awkward or do not express the intended relationship, and the final “To sum up” repeats a broad claim rather than consolidating the key trends. Organise the body by category or by perceived-versus-actual rates, and use clear references to each year so readers can follow the comparisons.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

You use relevant topic vocabulary, including “perceived,” “actual,” “victims,” and “crime,” and attempt a range of descriptive terms such as “slightly,” “notable,” and “dramatic.” However, several word choices and collocations are inaccurate or unclear, including “sharp rate,” “large number of perceived victims,” and “dramatic lower.” Repetition of “victims” also makes some descriptions cumbersome. Spelling errors such as “percieved” and “bulglarly” are noticeable and reduce precision. Use standard chart language and check spelling: for example, describe percentages as “figures” or “rates,” and say that a figure “fell” or “remained stable.” This would make the comparisons easier to understand.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

You attempt both simple and more complex sentences, including clauses introduced by “while,” “but,” and “whereas.” However, control is inconsistent, and errors sometimes make relationships between figures difficult to follow. Examples include “the graph illustrates how … likelihood … between 2009 to 2011,” “bulglarly crime percieved victims was,” and “actual victims of crime was.” These show problems with sentence construction, agreement, and tense or preposition patterns. Some sentences also run together or use punctuation unclearly, as in the car-crime comparison. Build accurate short sentences first, then combine them with one clear contrast clause; check subject–verb agreement and use consistent past-tense reporting.

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.