Band 4.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 4.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-11-09

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 4.5)

The bar presentation elucidates information about the perceived danger and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime. At a first glance, it can be promptly noticed that there was increament in car crime.

from the given statistics, it is apearant that highest (22%) perceived 2009\10 in car crime. followed by( 17%) perceived 2010/11 in car crime.The actual 2010/11 in car crime shared the same platform at 4%.

on the other hand, The least percentage 3% in actual 2010/11 in burglary. The percentage of perceived 2009/10 in burglary and violent crime both shared the same platform.The percentage of actual 2009/10 in violent crime were so contributed to less than 4%.

The major conclusion that can be drawn in the graph is that lowest crime in burglary and violent crime..

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 4.0

You identify the chart’s topic and make some relevant comparisons, including that car crime has the highest perceived figures and that perceived burglary and violent crime are similar in 2009/10. However, the response is substantially incomplete: it contains 117 words, below the required 150, and gives no clear, accurate overview of the main pattern. The statement that there was an “increament in car crime” is misleading, since perceived figures fell from 2009/10 to 2010/11 and actual figures were broadly stable or rose slightly. Some details are also inaccurate: actual burglary was lowest in 2009/10, not actual burglary in 2010/11. Cover all three crime types and both years, and summarise the large gap between perceived and actual likelihood.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 4.5

There is a basic attempt to organise the response, moving from an opening observation to selected figures and a concluding sentence. Connectors such as “on the other hand” and “followed by” show an effort to relate information. However, the ideas do not progress clearly: the opening claims an increase, while later figures suggest a decline in perceived car crime, and the conclusion that burglary and violent crime had the “lowest crime” does not follow clearly from the comparisons. Paragraphing is absent, and several sentences begin abruptly or are joined in ways that make relationships unclear. Group the information into an overview and a comparison of perceived versus actual figures, using clear links between years and crime types.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use some task-related vocabulary, including “perceived,” “actual likelihood,” “percentage,” and “statistics,” so the reader can recognise the subject. There are also attempts at more formal phrasing, such as “the major conclusion.” However, the range is limited and several choices are inaccurate or unnatural: “bar presentation,” “shared the same platform,” and “were so contributed to less than 4%” obscure the intended meaning. Spelling errors such as “increament” and “apearant” also reduce accuracy. Prefer precise chart language, for example “bar chart,” “were equal,” and “accounted for less than 4%.” Avoid decorative phrases when a direct description of the data would be clearer.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 4.5

The response attempts a few longer sentence forms, including “The percentage of perceived 2009/10 in burglary and violent crime both shared the same platform,” but control is inconsistent. Errors in sentence boundaries, articles, agreement, and word order occur frequently enough to make some statements difficult to interpret. For example, “from the given statistics, it is apearant that highest (22%) perceived 2009\10 in car crime” lacks a clear grammatical structure, while “The percentage … both shared” has an agreement and construction problem. Capitalisation after full stops is also inconsistent. Build accurate simple sentences first, then add comparisons with patterns such as “The perceived figure for car crime was higher in 2009/10 than in 2010/11.” Check each sentence for a subject, verb, and complete comparison.

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.