Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-09-19
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 5.5)
The graph illustrates the perceived threat and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime.
Overall, car crime was the highest percentage of perceived liklihood and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime among all three crimes in both year, while violent crime and burglary were at same percentage of perceived and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime in both year.
Looking into more details, in case of burglary over 15% of being victim of crime perceived in 2009 and 2010 and around 13% in second year, but actual likelihood were about less than 5% in both year. Car crime was the top percieved threat which crossed over 20% in the years of 2009 and 2010 and in next year it was around 17%. While, the actual likelihood were still less than 5% in both year.
Turning into the remaining data, the violent crime was level of burglary like just touch the 15% in 2009/2010 and around 13% in the next year, while, the actual likelihood were about below the 5% in both year.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 6.0 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.5 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.0 |
| Overall | 5.5 |
Task Achievement / Task Response — Band 6.0
The student successfully covers all parts of the task by reporting the main features of the chart and making relevant comparisons. An overview is provided in the second paragraph, correctly noting that car crime had the highest perceived and actual likelihoods, while violent crime and burglary shared similar figures. Key data points are cited, such as car crime exceeding 20% in the first period and burglary sitting around 15% and 13%. However, there is some minor inaccuracy in reading the timeline (referring to 2009 and 2010 rather than 2009/10 and 2010/11) and minor imprecise phrasing regarding the actual likelihoods. Overall, the response fulfills the requirements of Task 1 well, earning a solid band score.
Coherence and Cohesion — Band 5.5
The response has a clear overall progression and is divided into logical paragraphs, beginning with an introduction and overview, followed by body paragraphs detailing the categories. Cohesive devices are used to guide the reader, such as 'Overall', 'Looking into more details', and 'Turning into the remaining data'. However, some cohesive phrasing is awkward or non-standard, such as 'Turning into the remaining data' and 'the violent crime was level of burglary like just touch'. Referencing is occasionally slightly repetitive ('in both year', 'in both year'). Despite these minor cohesion and referencing flaws, the logical structure remains intact throughout.
Lexical Resource — Band 5.0
The student demonstrates an adequate vocabulary range for the task, attempting appropriate topic-specific terms such as 'perceived threat', 'actual likelihood', 'victim of crime', and 'burglary'. However, there are noticeable spelling and word-choice errors, including 'liklihood' instead of 'likelihood', 'percieved' instead of 'perceived', and awkward lexical collocations such as 'were at same percentage' and 'the violent crime was level of burglary like just touch'. These errors do not impede communication because the intended meaning is clear, but they prevent the score from reaching a higher band.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy — Band 5.0
The response displays a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, such as subordinate clauses ('while violent crime and burglary were at same percentage...'). However, there are frequent grammatical errors in subject-verb agreement and preposition use, including 'car crime was the highest percentage of perceived liklihood', 'in both year' (instead of years), and 'actual likelihood were about less than 5%' (plural/singular mismatch). Punctuation is generally acceptable, but sentence structures can be clumsy and prone to minor grammatical slips. The errors cause some distraction but do not obscure the overall communication.
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.