Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-08-24
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 bar chart illustrates the comparison of the risks of burglary, car crimes and violent crimes. Furthermore, a rational possibility of being a victim of these crimes over the period between 2009 and 2011.
Overall, the rates of these felonies have surged over those years. The number of the car related crimes from 2009 to 2010 reached its peak. The lawbreaking of mugging was at its lowest percentage in that time.
Within the period between 2009 and 2010, the ratio of these three violations soared, especially perceived vehicle stealing. It made up 22% of the total rate. However, the embezzlement and violent crimes shared the same percentage, which is approximately 15%.
From 2010 to 2011, the ratio of real offending remained almost stable except for car crimes, and it constituted 4%. The proportion of expected possibility of these unlawful acts were diminished than the past years. The car crimes in that period were shared for 17%.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.0 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.5 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.5 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.5 |
| Overall | 5.5 |
Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.0
The response attempts to summarise the data but fails to clearly distinguish between 'perceived danger' and 'actual likelihood', which is the core of the task. The overview is inaccurate, as it claims rates 'surged' over the years, whereas the data shows fluctuations and specific trends for different crime types. Several figures are cited, but the lack of clarity regarding which category (perceived vs. actual) is being discussed makes the report confusing. The response addresses the task but lacks the analytical depth required to clearly report the main features and comparisons, leading to a limited coverage of the provided information.
Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.5
The essay is organised into paragraphs, but the logical progression is weak. While some cohesive devices are used (e.g., 'Overall', 'However'), they are often used incorrectly or do not effectively link the ideas. For instance, the transition between the introduction and the body paragraphs is abrupt. The referencing is sometimes unclear, making it difficult for the reader to follow the comparison between the perceived and actual crime rates. The paragraphing is present but does not effectively group the information in a way that highlights the key trends or contrasts.
Lexical Resource — Band 5.5
The vocabulary is somewhat limited and occasionally inaccurate. Terms like 'felonies', 'lawbreaking', and 'violations' are used in a way that suggests a misunderstanding of their precise meaning in this context. Phrases such as 'expected possibility' and 'real offending' are awkward and do not accurately reflect the data labels. There is an attempt to use a range of vocabulary, but the lack of precision in word choice and collocation hinders the clarity of the report. The student relies on repetitive structures to describe the data points.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.5
The response contains a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, but there are frequent grammatical errors. Examples include 'the ratio of these three violations soared, especially perceived vehicle stealing' (missing preposition/article) and 'the proportion of expected possibility of these unlawful acts were diminished' (subject-verb agreement error). Punctuation is generally functional, but the sentence construction is often clunky, which occasionally impedes the flow of information. The errors are noticeable and occur throughout the text, though they do not completely prevent the reader from understanding the general intent.
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.