Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-09-14

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 6.0)

The bar chart compares the perceived danger and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime for 2 consecutive years.

Overall, the perception of being victim of a crime was considerably higher than actually being a victim of crime throughout the time period. Majority of the individuals percieved and actually fell victim to car crimes in both years.

A large proportion of indivduals were afraid of car crimes in both years with 21% percieved to be victime of car crim in 2009 to 2010 and 18% population worried about car crimes in 2010 and 2011. However, most people also fell victim to car crimes recording 5% people being affected in both years.

Subsequently, the perception of being victim to burgarly and violent crimes were alike in both years, however, people were actually more endangered by violent crimes at 4% in both years rather than burglary. 2% people fell victim to burglary in 2009 and 2010 before it slightly increased to 3% in 2011.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 6.0

The response covers all parts of the task by summarizing the main features and making comparisons between perceived danger and actual likelihood across the crime types. The overview correctly identifies that perceived danger was higher than actual likelihood throughout, and highlights that car crimes were the most prevalent category. However, there are some data inaccuracies and misinterpretations in the body paragraphs. For instance, the writer states that 21% perceived themselves to be victims of car crime in 2009 to 2010, whereas the chart shows two distinct years or periods (2009 and 2010, or categories), and percentages are somewhat misquoted. Furthermore, the timeline referencing is slightly confused ('2009 to 2010' and '2010 and 2011' as years instead of separate data categories). Despite these minor data citation errors, the main trends are addressed, earning a Band 6.0.

Coherence and Cohesion — Band 6.0

The response has a clear overall arrangement with a distinct introduction, an overview paragraph, and body details. Cohesive devices are used to link ideas, such as 'Overall', 'However', and 'Subsequently'. Paragraphing is used sufficiently to separate different aspects of the visual data. However, referencing and cohesion are sometimes faulty or mechanical. For example, the transition between sentences feels slightly disjointed, and pronouns or referencing markers lack precision, occasionally making it difficult to follow which exact year or data subset is being referenced. Progression is somewhat hampered by repetitive sentence structures and clunky transitions, leading to a Band 6.0 descriptor match.

Lexical Resource — Band 6.0

The writer demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary for the task, successfully incorporating terms such as 'perceived danger', 'actual likelihood', 'proportion', and 'burglary'. There are several spelling and word choice errors, such as 'percieved' (misspelled multiple times), 'indivduals', 'victime', 'crim', and 'burgarly'. These errors show some lack of control over less common vocabulary and spelling, though they do not seriously impede overall communication. Because the vocabulary is sufficient to convey the main message despite noticeable errors, this fits the Band 5.5 to 6.0 profile, comfortably supporting a Band 6.0 score.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 6.0

The response uses a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, such as introductory subordinate clauses ('Overall, the perception of... was considerably higher than...') and contrastive structures using 'however'. There are several grammatical and mechanical errors present, including preposition misuse ('victim of a crime' vs 'victim to burgarly'), missing articles, and subject-verb agreement issues ('Majority of the individuals percieved...'). Despite these recurring inaccuracies, the errors rarely impede communication and the basic meaning remains clear. This reflects a typical Band 6.0 performance where a mix of structures is attempted with intermittent errors.

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.