Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.0 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-09-15
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 bar graph compares the proportion of either became more conscious about the danger or actual possibility of being a victim of any type of crime from 2009 to 2011.
Overall the graph illustrates that the perceived danger and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime is categorized into three portions according to crime types, burglary, car crime and violent crime, although the common thing in all three phases is that perceived danger in 2009/10 was higher than other factors.
In cases, like burglary and violent crime, they almost have a minor difference between the proportions of each situations, as they both phases have major portion of perceived danger in 2009/10 having ratios 16% and 15%, while in 2010/11 both have almost 13.5% percent, on the other hand actual likelihood in 2009/10 there percentages are probably 2%, 3.5%, meanwhile 2.5% and 3.5% in 2010/11.
As the car crime was top of the list, even the situations where its lower ratios were exceeded than other like its perceived values ranging from
21% to 17% in 2009/10 and 2010/11, in contrast to actual feasibility there percentages slightly vary from 14.5% to14% in 2009/10 - 2010/11.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 4.5 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.0 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.0 |
| Overall | 5.0 |
Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 4.5
The student attempts to cover the main features of the graph comparing perceived danger and actual likelihood of crime types across two periods. However, there are significant issues with data interpretation and accuracy. For instance, the student misreads the actual likelihood for car crime, stating percentages range from '14.5% to 14%', whereas the actual figures on the chart are around 4.5%. This represents a severe misinterpretation of the visual data. While an overview is attempted in the second paragraph, the response fails to fully and accurately report the main trends and comparisons due to these factual errors in reading the chart axes and values. Consequently, the task achievement is limited by inaccurate data reporting.
Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.0
The response is organized into four paragraphs, including an introduction and a brief overview sentence, but the progression of ideas is hindered by poor referencing and confusing sentence structures. Cohesive devices are used awkwardly or inaccurately, such as starting sentences with 'In cases, like burglary...' and 'As the car crime was top of the list...'. Paragraphing is attempted, but the internal logical flow of the body paragraphs is frequently disrupted by convoluted phrasing and unclear connections between ideas, making the overall arrangement somewhat disjointed.
Lexical Resource — Band 5.0
The vocabulary used is often unnatural or inappropriate for an Academic Task 1 response. Phrases like 'either became more conscious about the danger' and 'actual feasibility' demonstrate a lack of precision and awkward word choice. There are also frequent issues with collocation and vocabulary control (e.g., 'major portion of perceived danger', 'ratios'). While the student attempts some less common vocabulary, the inaccuracies in word choice and the misapplication of terms impede clear communication in several places, restricting the score to this band.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0
The student attempts a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, but control over grammar and punctuation is weak. Many sentences are grammatically flawed, run-on, or structurally incomplete, such as 'Overall the graph illustrates that the perceived danger and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime is categorized...'. Subject-verb agreement errors ('is categorized', 'there percentages') and awkward clause integration ('where its lower ratios were exceeded than other like its perceived values') are frequent and occasionally cause difficulty for the reader.
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.