Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.0 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-09-24
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 graph illustrates the percentage of crime perceived versus actual crime of three types of crime across the years 2009 to 2011.
Firstly burglary was perceived about 15% in the year 2009/10 but the actual crime which took place was only 2%. On the other hand, about 13% crime was perceived in the year 2010/11 but only 2.5% took place actually registering the lowest actual crime.
In contrast to burgulary, about 22% car crime was expected in the year 2009/10 but only 4% actually took place. However despite the 17% expectancy in the year 2010/11, the actual crime slightly decreased from 4%.On the other hand, violent crime was estimated to be about 15.5% but the actual registered crime was about 3%. However, about 13% violent crime was expected in the year 2010/11 but the actual crime remained steady at 3%.
In conclusion, the most perceived crime turned out to be actually the hghest registered also but there was a big difference in both perceived and actual crime in both years 2009/10 and 2010/11. However, burgulary and violent crime were both expected at about 15 % and 13% in the years 2009/10 and 2010/11 respectively but the actual crime was way too low where burgulary registered the lowest number at about 2.5 % in 2009/10 and 3% in 2010/11 but violent crime registerd the same number 4% in both 2009/10 and 2010/11.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.5 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.0 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 5.0 |
| Overall | 5.0 |
Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5
The student attempts to address the task by summarizing the main features of the chart comparing perceived and actual crime types across the two years. However, there are several noticeable inaccuracies and confusions in reporting the data. For instance, the student states that car crime in 2010/11 had a perceived rate of 17% and the actual crime slightly decreased from 4%, whereas the actual rate remained constant at 4.5%. Furthermore, the conclusion contains contradictory and confused data statements, such as misreporting the actual figures for burglary and violent crime. While an overview is attempted, the minor errors in data interpretation pull this down to a band 5.5 level.
Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.0
The response is organized into paragraphs with an introduction, body paragraphs addressing specific crime categories, and a conclusion. However, the progression within paragraphs is sometimes difficult to follow due to mechanical and repetitive cohesive devices, such as the frequent use of 'on the other hand' and 'however'. Referencing between sentences is occasionally unclear, and the conclusion becomes convoluted and hard to parse, resulting in a somewhat confused flow of ideas. Paragraphing is present, but overall logical sequencing is disrupted by errors in data referencing.
Lexical Resource: Band 5.0
The student demonstrates an adequate vocabulary range to communicate basic information about the chart, using terms such as 'percentage', 'perceived', 'actual', and 'registered crime'. However, there are spelling errors ('burgulary', 'hghest', 'registerd') and unnatural collocations or word choices ('the most perceived crime turned out to be actually the hghest registered also'). The range of vocabulary is rather limited and repetitive, preventing the response from reaching a higher band score.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0
The writer attempts a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, using conjunctions like 'although', 'while', and 'on the other hand'. However, grammatical control is inconsistent. There are issues with preposition usage, article omission, and awkward phrasing throughout the text (e.g., 'burglary was perceived about 15%' instead of 'was perceived to be about 15%'). Punctuation errors, such as missing spaces after periods and commas, are also present. These errors occasionally cause strain for the reader, though overall meaning remains partially intelligible.
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.