Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-09-03

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 5.0)

This bar graph illustrates the perceived danger and actual likelihood of being a victim by three distinct types between 2009 and 2011.

Overall, car crime is the highest in actual crime category, by contrast crimes committed by burglary and violent showed the similar patterns.

From 2009 to 2010 crimes committed by burglary was at 15% that perceived, but actual numbers were significantly low approximately at 2%, and remained the from 2010 to 2011. It was predicted rise to around 13%. In terms of car crime it was predicted that will surge to about at 21% from 2009 to 2010, but actual incidents rate were below 4%. From 2010 to 2011 it was estimated that it will increase to round at 13%, but followed the same trajectory in terms of actual incidents.

Violent crime rates were forecasted to reach at 15% , but it was near about 2% from 2009 to 2010. In between 2010 and 2011 actual crime rate percentage was at 3%, whereas it was predicted to rise about 15%. In between 2010 to 2011 actual crime rate levelled of at 3%, but it was estimated to peak around by 13%.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.0

The response covers the main features of the graph, including the perceived and actual crime rates. However, the data reporting is often inaccurate or confusing. For example, you state that burglary was 15% perceived but 2% actual, yet the graph shows different figures for 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. The description of trends is also imprecise, and the distinction between the years is muddled. While you attempt to make comparisons, the lack of clarity in data presentation prevents a full and accurate summary of the information provided.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.0

The essay is organised into paragraphs, but the progression of ideas is often disjointed. The use of cohesive devices is limited and sometimes mechanical (e.g., 'In terms of', 'In between'). There are instances where referencing is unclear, such as 'remained the from 2010 to 2011', which lacks a clear subject. The logical flow is hindered by repetitive sentence structures and a lack of smooth transitions between the different crime categories. Paragraphing is present but does not effectively group the information to enhance readability.

Lexical Resource — Band 5.0

The range of vocabulary is adequate for the task but lacks precision. You rely on simple descriptors like 'high', 'low', and 'increase'. There are several awkward collocations and word choices, such as 'actual incidents rate' instead of 'actual incident rate' and 'levelled of' (spelling error). The repetition of phrases like 'it was predicted' and 'actual crime rate' limits the sophistication of the writing. To reach a higher band, you should incorporate more varied vocabulary to describe trends and statistical data.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0

The writing contains a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, but there are frequent grammatical errors that occasionally impede clarity. Common issues include incorrect verb forms ('it was predicted rise'), missing articles, and preposition errors ('levelled of at 3%'). Subject-verb agreement is also inconsistent. While the meaning is generally understandable, the high frequency of errors in basic sentence construction prevents the response from reaching a higher band. More attention to proofreading for tense consistency and sentence structure is required.

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.