Band 4.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 4.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-09-28
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 4.5)
The given line graph shows the regarded danger and actual possibility of being victim of crime.
Overall it can be observed at aglance that possibility of car crime is at highest percentage rather than burglary and violent crime.
The given graph is calculated in pecentage
More in deepth analysis it shows that in 2009/10 the possibility of car crime is of 21% rather than the possibility of burglary is 15% and the possibility of violent is also 15%.
On other hand the actual crime of car in 2009/10 is more than of burglary and violent crime. burrglary is almost 2% which is slighty less than voilent crime which is alost 3%. As a result, the car crime in 2009/10 has highest percentage.
In sharp contrast to this, the perceived of car crime in 2010/11 remains on highest with 17%. in additon the perceived violent crime is slightly is slighty higher tham burglary.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.0 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 4.0 |
| Lexical Resource | 4.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 4.0 |
| Overall | 4.5 |
Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.0
The student attempts to address the task by summarizing data from the bar chart regarding the perceived and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime. However, the data reporting is somewhat inaccurate and incomplete. For instance, the writer states that 'the possibility of car crime is of 21% rather than the possibility of burglary is 15% and the possibility of violent is also 15%', which misinterprets the 2009/10 perceived figures (burglary and violent crime were both 15.5%, not 15%). Furthermore, the response is poorly structured into very fragmented paragraphs, lacking a cohesive overview of the main trends. The selection of data points is random, and comparisons between perceived danger and actual likelihood are underdeveloped. Based on these limitations in data accuracy and task coverage, this performance corresponds to a band 5.0.
Coherence and Cohesion: Band 4.0
The text suffers from a lack of proper paragraphing, consisting of a series of isolated, single-sentence paragraphs ('The given line graph...', 'Overall it can be observed...', 'The given graph is calculated...'). This severely disrupts the logical flow and progression of ideas. Cohesive devices are either missing or misused, with clumsy transitional phrases such as 'More in deepth analysis' and 'On other hand'. There is no clear overall progression or structuring of information, making the text disjointed to read. Referencing is also weak, leading to confusion between the years and crime types. This level of organization reflects band 4.0 descriptors.
Lexical Resource: Band 4.0
The vocabulary used is basic and repetitive, frequently relying on simple terms like 'possibility', 'percentage', and 'crime'. There are numerous lexical and spelling errors throughout the text, including 'regarded' instead of 'perceived', 'aglance' instead of 'at a glance', 'pecentage' instead of 'percentage', 'deepth' instead of 'depth', 'burrglary' instead of 'burglary', and 'voilent' instead of 'violent'. These errors, combined with unnatural collocations like 'actual crime of car', indicate a limited and strained lexical resource. The range of vocabulary is barely adequate to convey the basic message, fitting the criteria for a band 4.0.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 4.0
The student demonstrates a very limited range of grammatical structures, relying heavily on simple sentences with frequent structural errors. Examples of faulty grammar include 'the possibility of car crime is of 21%', 'the perceived of car crime', and 'the perceived violent crime is slightly is slighty higher tham burglary'. Tense consistency is poorly handled, shifting awkwardly between past and present. Punctuation is also problematic, with missing full stops and erratic capitalization. Errors are frequent and often impede the reader's understanding of the intended meaning, placing this performance at band 4.0.
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.