Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-08-29
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 crime rate of victim involved of perceived danger and actual likelihood across threes from 2009 to 2011.
Overall, the car crime rates were highest in 2009 ,while burglary was the lowest in 2010.
In 2009, the highest participation of crime rate was car crime . Car crime stood at 20% in perceived while , in 2010 perceived crime rate declined dramatically at 10% . The actual crime rate was 5% in 2009 an 2011. However , the burglary proportion was the lowest among all three categories and the actual crime rate was 3% in 2009 and 2010 . Meanwhile , the perceived crime rate in 2009 was 15% and in 2011 it was 13%.
Furthermore , the violent crime rate was ranked second after car crime in victim of crime and share 4% of actual crime rate in 2010 . yet it was dropped at 3 % in2011 . Moreover , the perceived crime rate was responsible for the share of 18% in2009 and 17% in 2010.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.5 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.5 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.0 |
| Overall | 5.5 |
Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.5
The response covers the main features of the graph, but the presentation of data is inconsistent and occasionally confusing. While you identify the three crime types and mention some figures, the analysis lacks clarity in comparing the 'perceived' versus 'actual' likelihood. For example, stating 'the highest participation of crime rate was car crime' is imprecise. Furthermore, the description of the data is sometimes inaccurate or difficult to follow, such as the mention of 'threes' instead of 'three categories'. To improve, ensure you clearly contrast the perceived danger against the actual likelihood for each category rather than listing isolated percentages, which makes the overall trend difficult to discern.
Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.5
The essay is organised into paragraphs, which helps the reader follow the structure. However, the use of cohesive devices is often mechanical or misused. Phrases like 'Furthermore' and 'Moreover' are used, but the logical flow between sentences is frequently interrupted by awkward phrasing and unclear referencing. For instance, the transition between the overview and the body paragraphs is abrupt. Additionally, the internal structure of the sentences often lacks cohesion, making it difficult to track the comparison between the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. Improving the use of linking words and ensuring that each paragraph has a clear thematic focus would enhance the logical progression.
Lexical Resource — Band 5.0
The vocabulary is limited and repetitive, often relying on basic descriptors. There are several instances of awkward word choices and collocations, such as 'victim involved of perceived danger' and 'highest participation of crime rate'. These errors occasionally impede the clarity of the information. While you attempt to use some topic-specific vocabulary like 'proportion' and 'categories', the overall range is insufficient to convey the data with precision. To reach a higher band, focus on using more varied and accurate terminology to describe trends, such as 'fluctuated', 'remained stable', or 'a significant discrepancy between'.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0
The response contains frequent grammatical errors that affect readability. There are issues with article usage ('the car crime rates'), subject-verb agreement, and tense consistency. Punctuation is also problematic, with inconsistent spacing around commas and periods (e.g., '2009 ,while'). The sentence structures are mostly simple, and attempts at more complex sentences often result in errors, such as 'the violent crime rate was ranked second... and share 4%'. To improve, focus on mastering basic sentence construction, ensuring correct subject-verb agreement, and proofreading for punctuation errors, which currently detract from the professional tone required for an academic task.
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.