Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.0 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-09-18
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 chart illustrats the potential danger of being victim of crime and being likelihood of being victim of a crime.
In brief, it is noticeable that, in 2009 to 2010 perceived of being in car crime was at peak compared to 2010 to 2011.Overall, likelihood of being in crime was lower than in perceived victim of crime.
To begin with, a little over 15% of people in 2009/2010 were perceived of being in crime in burglary, while the actual likelihood was less than 5%. More over, in 2010/2011, perceived rateo with down to 13%, whilst actual rateo was 3.5%. In addition, 15% people were perceived in violent crime in 2009/2010 and 14% counted in 2010/1011, while actual number was only 3% in 2009/2010 and a little over 3% in 2010/1011.
In contrast, individuals perceived on being in car crime was at the top comparing to two other crime. It was counted 21% in 2009/2010, while the real rumber was only 4.5%. Furthermore, in 2010/1011 it was reported estemating 12%, while it was less than 5%.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.0 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.0 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.0 |
| Overall | 5.0 |
Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 5.0
The student attempts to address the task by summarizing the main features of the bar chart, such as highlighting that car crime had the highest perceived danger and that perceived levels were consistently much higher than actual likelihoods. However, there are several inaccuracies in reporting the data. For instance, the student states that car crime in 2010/2011 was estimated at 12%, whereas the visual data indicates it was around 17% for perceived and 4.5% for actual. Additionally, the overview is rather fragmented and placed awkwardly in the middle of the response rather than serving as a clear introductory or concluding summary. While the main trends are touched upon, the lack of precision in data reporting and uneven development keep this criterion at Band 5.0.
Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.0
The response has some basic organization with paragraph breaks separating the introduction, body details, and comparisons. However, overall progression lacks clarity, and cohesive devices are frequently misused or awkward, such as starting sentences with 'In brief,' in the second sentence, and 'More over' and 'In addition'. Referencing is sometimes unclear, and the mechanical use of transition phrases disrupts the flow of the text. Paragraphing is attempted, but the placement of the overview makes the structure feel disjointed. These limitations in logical sequencing and cohesive control align with Band 5.0.
Lexical Resource — Band 5.0
The student uses a limited range of vocabulary relevant to the topic, such as 'crime', 'danger', 'likelihood', 'burglary', and 'violent crime'. However, there are frequent word choice errors, awkward collocations, and incorrect morphological forms throughout the text, including 'illustrats' (illustrates), 'perceived of being' (perception of being), 'rateo' (rate), and 'estemating' (estimated). Spelling errors and incorrect word forms occasionally impede communication and restrict the vocabulary to a basic level. The lexical range is minimally adequate for the task, fitting Band 5.0.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0
The student attempts a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, but control is weak, leading to frequent grammatical errors. Examples of errors include 'being likelihood of being victim' and 'individuals perceived on being in car crime was at the top comparing to two other crime'. Subject-verb agreement and prepositional usage are problematic ('rateo with down to 13%'). While simple sentences are generally understandable, attempts at more complex structures often result in faulty grammar that can cause difficulty for the reader. This performance is characteristic of 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.