Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-08-04
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 compares the perceived danger and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime for the years 2009 and 2010. The crimes are burglary, car crime, and violent crime.
Overall, the perceived danger of being a victim of crime was significantly higher in every crime type for both years. While the percentages for an actual victim to perceived risk ratio had a substantial difference, as being an actual victim had a much lower percentage compared to the perceived risk.
21% of people perceived being a victim of car crimes in 2009 compared to 16% in 2010. Similarly, in 2009 more people perceived themselves as being a victim of burglary and violent crimes than in 2010 by approximately 2.5%.
The percentage of being involved in an actual crime was almost equal for both years, slightly less than 5% for car crimes, 2.5% for violent crimes and burglary.
In conclusion, the percentage for perceived danger of being a victim of crime was higher in 2009, whereas the percentage for actually being a victim was less than perceived risk, however, the percentage of actually being in a crime stayed consistent throughout different crimes.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.5 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 6.0 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.5 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.5 |
| Overall | 5.5 |
Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.5
The response covers the main features of the graph, identifying the key trend that perceived danger consistently outweighs actual likelihood. However, the report lacks precision in data reporting. For instance, the statement that actual crime rates were 'almost equal' for both years is a broad generalization that misses the specific variations shown in the graph. Furthermore, the comparison between 2009 and 2010 for burglary and violent crimes is vague, lacking specific figures to support the claim of a 2.5% difference. To improve, ensure that key data points are explicitly cited to support comparisons, rather than relying on general descriptions.
Coherence and Cohesion — Band 6.0
The essay is logically organized with a clear introduction, body paragraphs, and a concluding summary. Paragraphing is used appropriately to separate the overview from the specific data analysis. Cohesive devices such as 'Similarly', 'Overall', and 'In conclusion' are used to guide the reader. However, the flow between sentences is occasionally mechanical, and some transitions could be more sophisticated. For example, the second paragraph's transition to the third could be smoother to better link the general trend to the specific data points. Overall, the progression of ideas is clear and easy to follow.
Lexical Resource — Band 5.5
The vocabulary is adequate for the task, allowing for clear communication of the trends. You use terms like 'perceived danger', 'actual likelihood', and 'victim of crime' correctly. However, the range is somewhat limited and repetitive. Phrases like 'percentage of being involved' and 'percentage for actually being a victim' are slightly awkward and could be expressed more naturally. To reach a higher band, try to incorporate more varied synonyms for 'percentage' (e.g., 'proportion', 'rate', 'figure') and more precise collocations to describe statistical trends, such as 'remained stable' instead of 'stayed consistent'.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.5
The response demonstrates a mix of simple and complex sentence structures. While the meaning is generally clear, there are some grammatical inaccuracies. For example, 'the percentage for an actual victim to perceived risk ratio' is syntactically confusing. Additionally, 'the percentage of actually being in a crime' is not idiomatic; 'the rate of becoming a victim of crime' would be more accurate. Punctuation is generally sound, but there are minor issues with sentence structure that occasionally hinder the precision of your analysis. Increasing the variety of complex structures while ensuring subject-verb agreement would improve your score.
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.