Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.0 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-09-30

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 provides information about perceived and acctual likehood of being a victim of crime which crime type. Overall, it is apparent that the proportions varied considerably among the categories. perceived accounted for largest share, whereas actual 2009/10 represented smallest segment. The remaining categories occupied intermediate positions with noticeable differencee in magnitude.

In car crime, perceived 2009/10 recorded the highest figure at approximately 21%, followed by perceived 2010/11 at around 17%. The proportions for, actual 2009/10 and actual 2010/11 were same standing at oughly less than 5%, respectively the difference between the hightest and lowest groups in this caategory was therefore about 15 percentage points.

A simila comparison can be made for violent crime. Here perceived 2009/10 again led the ranking, while actual 2009/10 remain at the bottom. However, the gap between the four groups in this category was narrow than that observed in car crime.

Turning to burglary, the distribution followed a similar pattern. Perceived 2009/10 stood at approximately 15%, exceeding perceived 2010/11by 13%, while actual 2009/10 and 2010/11 recorded lower values. The spread between the four groups was minimal.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.0

The student attempts to cover the main features of the chart, but the response suffers from significant template-like and vague phrasing in the introduction (e.g., 'perceived accounted for largest share, whereas actual 2009/10 represented smallest segment'). Furthermore, there are some inaccuracies and awkward interpretations of the data, such as claiming 'perceived 2010/11by 13%' under burglary where the value was actually 13% and compared incorrectly. However, key data points for car crime, violent crime, and burglary are mentioned with comparisons made across the four groups. Because the overview is somewhat generic and mechanical rather than effectively summarising the main trends, the task achievement is limited. Band score: 5.5.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response is divided into logical paragraphs, with an introduction and separate body paragraphs for car crime, violent crime, and burglary. There is an attempt at progression, moving systematically through the crime categories. However, cohesive devices are sometimes faulty or mechanical, and the referencing is occasionally unclear (e.g., 'A simila comparison can be made'). Paragraphing is present and helps structure the response, but overall logical flow is hindered by awkward transitions and template-like overview sentences that lack precise cohesion with the body. Band score: 6.0.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

The vocabulary used is adequate for the task, touching upon topic-specific terms like 'proportions', 'categories', 'percentage points', and crime types. However, there are numerous spelling errors ('acctual', 'likehood', 'differncee', 'oughly', 'hightest', 'caategory', 'simila', 'narrow') and imprecise lexical choices. Less common lexical items are attempted but often marred by morphological or spelling inaccuracies. The range is sufficient to convey the basic message, but errors in word form and spelling are frequent enough to restrict the band. Band score: 5.0.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

The student attempts a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, such as relative clauses and comparative forms ('while actual 2009/10 remain at the bottom'). However, there are frequent grammatical errors throughout the text, including subject-verb agreement issues ('actual 2009/10 remain'), missing prepositions, punctuation errors, and awkward phrasing ('the proportions for, actual 2009/10 and actual 2010/11 were same'). While communication is generally maintained despite these errors, the high frequency of inaccurate complex structures prevents the response from achieving a higher band. Band score: 5.5.

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.