Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-09-13

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)

The chart illustrates by what percentage the rate of crime by type like burglary, car crime and violent crime perceived and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Overall, the car crime perceived in 2009/10 was the highest of all years among in three years. Whereas burglary was the lowest the same year among other crimes.

Burglary was perceived 16% in 2009/10, actually happend significantly less like 2.5% but in 2010/11 perceived rate was around 13% but actually happend 3% which was acceleted by 0.5% in a year. When we see violent crime rate, in 2009/10 perceived rate was same as burglary which was 16% but actual rate was higher which was approximately 3%. In 2010/11 violent crime asseumed 13% closely where actually happend 3%.

Lastly, the car crime we thought of happening in 2009/10 was like 22%, fortunately it was around 4%. it was quite less than expected, also a good thing. Then again, in 2010/11 considered car crime rate was 18% whereas in real the rate was the same 4%.

The crime rate connsidered of happening was much higher than actual rate over three years. Among three types, car crime was the most popular one because it was higher in rate like 4% where other two were slightly low.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.0

The student attempts to summarise the main features of the chart, providing specific data points for burglary, violent crime, and car crime across the years 2009/10 and 2010/11. However, the overview is extremely weak and lacks a clear, overarching summary of the main trends. Furthermore, the selection of data is somewhat disjointed, and the student struggles to make meaningful comparisons between the perceived danger and the actual likelihood of victimisation. There are several inaccuracies in data reporting; for instance, the student states that car crime was 'around 4%' but misses key comparative trends across the broader categories. Because the response covers the basic prompt and attempts to report data, it meets the requirements for a Band 5.0.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.0

The response is organised into paragraphs, but the logical progression is frequently disrupted by awkward transitions and confusing sentence structures. While the student uses some basic cohesive devices such as 'Overall', 'Whereas', and 'Lastly', referencing is often unclear, leaving the reader to puzzle over which year or crime type is being referenced. Paragraphing is attempted, but the grouping of ideas within paragraphs feels arbitrary rather than logically structured. There is no clear overall progression of information, leading to a mechanical and somewhat fragmented reading experience. This performance aligns well with the Band 5.0 descriptors for Coherence and Cohesion.

Lexical Resource — Band 5.0

The student demonstrates a limited range of vocabulary that is minimally adequate for the task. Words such as 'perceived', 'actual', 'burglary', and 'violent crime' are used correctly, but there is a heavy reliance on repetitive phrasing and conversational language, such as 'happend significantly less' and 'the car crime we thought of happening'. There are noticeable spelling and word-choice errors throughout the text, including 'acceleted', 'asseumed', and 'connsidered'. These errors cause some difficulty for the reader and reveal a lack of control over less common lexical items, placing this response firmly in the Band 5.0 category.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0

The student attempts a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, but attempts at complex sentences are frequently faulty, leading to grammatically incomplete or convoluted clauses. Examples include 'The chart illustrates by what percentage the rate of crime by type... perceived and actual likelihood' and 'When we see violent crime rate, in 2009/10 perceived rate was same as burglary which was 16% but actual rate was higher'. Frequent errors in tense consistency, preposition usage, and article omission are present throughout the text. While communication is not entirely obscured, these errors cause significant difficulty for the reader, matching the criteria for a Band 5.0.

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.