Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.0 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-09-07
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)
Below graph includes data of actual likelihood and perceived danger of being a victim of crime by crime type. There are three crime types according to the graph, 1. Burglary , 2. Car Crime , 3. Violent Crime. In 2009 perceived danger of Burglary are high than the actual Burglary. In 2010 perceived danger of burglary precentage is less than 2009 precentage. But actual likelihood burglary is higher in 2010. Perceived danger of car crime is higher than actual precentage. Actual car crime has higher precentage in 2009. Perceived danger of Violent crime precentage is higher in 2009 but actual crime precentage is same as 2009 and 2010. Comparing to these crimes, car crimes are higher than burglary and violent crimes. As precentage burglary crimes are less than car crimes and violent crimes. According to this graph perceived danger of crime precentage is higher in 2009 and 2010 rather than actual likelihood precentage.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.5 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.0 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.0 |
| Overall | 5.0 |
Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.5
The response covers the main features of the graph, but the analysis is somewhat mechanical and lacks a clear overview. While you identify the three crime types and compare perceived versus actual likelihood, the reporting of data is repetitive and lacks synthesis. For example, stating 'In 2009 perceived danger of Burglary are high than the actual Burglary' is a basic observation. To reach a higher band, you should group the data more effectively to highlight trends and significant differences rather than listing individual data points. The conclusion regarding perceived danger being higher than actual likelihood is a good summary, but the overall development is limited.
Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.0
The response lacks paragraphing, which is essential for a clear structure in an Academic Task 1 report. The ideas are presented in a single block, making it difficult for the reader to follow the progression of information. While there is some attempt at logical sequencing, the use of cohesive devices is very limited and repetitive (e.g., 'In 2009', 'In 2010'). The lack of clear transitions between the different crime types makes the text feel like a list of sentences rather than a cohesive report. Improving the use of linking words and organizing the response into distinct paragraphs would significantly improve the flow.
Lexical Resource — Band 5.0
The vocabulary is adequate for the task but remains quite basic and repetitive. You frequently use the word 'precentage' (which is also misspelled as 'precentage' throughout) and 'crime'. There is little attempt to use a wider range of vocabulary to describe trends or comparisons (e.g., 'fluctuated', 'remained stable', 'significantly higher'). To improve, try to incorporate more precise terminology related to data reporting, such as 'proportion', 'rate', 'incidence', or 'discrepancy'. Additionally, ensure you check your spelling, as the repeated error 'precentage' detracts from the professional tone of the report.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0
The response relies heavily on simple sentence structures. There are frequent grammatical errors, such as subject-verb agreement issues ('perceived danger... are high') and awkward phrasing ('actual likelihood burglary is higher'). Punctuation is also inconsistent, particularly with the list format at the beginning. While the meaning is generally clear, the lack of complex sentence structures and the presence of persistent errors in basic grammar limit the score. To improve, focus on using a variety of sentence types, such as relative clauses or comparative structures, and ensure subject-verb agreement is consistent.
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.