Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.0 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-09-25
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 depicts the proportion of real and understood law-breaking events sufferer in percentage in year 2009 and 2010.
Overall, in 2009 percieved car crime ratio was extremely high which was around 21% comparitively, actual crime ratio was around 4%. Futhermore in burglary and violent crime also showed rise in percieved crime on the other hand, real one was less than percieved one. In addition, we observed almost constant trend in both actual and percieved values.
To begin with burglary crimal record in 2009/10 we clearly observed that percieved crime ration was 15.5% whereas, actual record was three times less than percieved ratio which was 2%. likewise, in year 2010/11 similar trend was noticed where actual burglary victim was near to 3% which far less than percieved victims which was 13%.
Moving towards car crime record where we clearly observed that around 21% was percieved victim and 3.5% was actual sufferers in year 2009/10. Moreover In year 2010/11 both categories shows constant trend.While, violent crime ratio in year 2010/11 remained similar but in year 2009/10 we observed that percieved was 15% and actual was 2 percent less than percieved victims.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.0 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 5.0 |
| Lexical Resource | 4.5 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 4.5 |
| Overall | 5.0 |
Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.0
The student attempts to summarise the main features of the chart, noting the overall differences between perceived and actual crime rates for burglary, car crime, and violent crime across the two periods. However, the overview is rather vague and contains inaccurate generalisations ('we observed almost constant trend in both actual and percieved values'). Furthermore, there are several inaccuracies in quoting the data, such as stating that violent crime in 2009/10 had 'percieved was 15% and actual was 2 percent less than percieved victims' (whereas actual was 3%). The response covers all parts of the prompt but lacks precision in reporting data, aligning well with the Band 5 descriptors.
Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.0
The text is organised into paragraphs, with an introduction, an overview, and separate body paragraphs for different crime types. However, the progression of ideas is sometimes hindered by poor mechanical linking and awkward referencing. For example, transition phrases like 'Moving towards car crime record where we clearly observed' and 'Futhermore in burglary and violent crime also showed rise' demonstrate inadequate and inaccurate use of cohesive devices. Paragraphing is attempted, but internal cohesion within sentences is frequently faulty, placing the response firmly at Band 5.
Lexical Resource: Band 4.5
The vocabulary used is often unnatural, imprecise, or strained, as seen in phrases like 'real and understood law-breaking events sufferer' instead of perceived and actual crime rates. There are numerous spelling and word-choice errors throughout the text, including 'percieved', 'comparitively', 'Futhermore', 'crimal', and 'sufferers'. The range is limited and adequate only for basic communication, with less-common lexical items either misused or misspelled. This performance meets the criteria for Band 4.0 to 5.0, reflecting noticeable errors that cause difficulty for the reader.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 4.5
The student attempts a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, but these are frequently marred by basic grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and punctuation issues. Examples include 'which was around 21% comparitively, actual crime ratio was around 4%' (comma splice) and 'both categories shows constant trend' (subject-verb agreement error). There are frequent errors in verb tense, preposition usage, and sentence structure that cause strain for the reader. The control of grammar is weak, consistent with a Band 4.5 performance.
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.