Band 5.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer
Overall Band Score: 5.0 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-01
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 chart illustrates the perceived danger and actual likelihood of being a victim of crime.
Overall, the car crime has the dominant contribution in different years, while violent crime has the second highest proportion. In contrast, burglary has
accounted low proportion in different era.
in 2009/10, the car crime perceived has the highest peoportion 22%, follwed by perceived 2010/11, 17% proportion. While actual 2009/10 and actual 2010/11, has the 4% and 3% proportion of crime respectively. While, violent crime accounted for 15%, perceived 2009/10, followed by perceived 2010/11, 18% proportion. However, actual 2009/10 and actual 2010/11, has the same proportion of crime 3% respectively.
By 2009/10, the victim of burglary crime proportion same as violent crime 15%, followed by perceived 2010/11, 17% proportion. in contrast, actual
2009/10 and actual 2010/11, accounted the lowest proportion 2% and 2.1% respectively. Car crime has the highest percentage of crime as compare to others.
AI examiner evaluation
| Criterion | Band |
|---|---|
| Task Achievement / Task Response | 5.5 |
| Coherence and Cohesion | 4.5 |
| Lexical Resource | 5.0 |
| Grammatical Range and Accuracy | 4.5 |
| Overall | 5.0 |
Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5
The response attempts to address the prompt by summarising the bar chart on perceived and actual crime likelihood. While an overview is attempted, it is partially obscured by imprecise reporting and awkward phrasing, such as claiming car crime has a dominant contribution in different years. Some key features are mentioned, such as car crime having the highest percentages, but the data citations are frequently inaccurate or confused, mixing up years and categories (for example, misstating that the victim of burglary crime proportion was the same as violent crime). The main trends are partially covered, but the overall presentation lacks clarity and precision, reflecting only a partial address of the task requirements.
Coherence and Cohesion: Band 4.5
Information and ideas are not arranged coherently throughout the response, resulting in a lack of clear overall progression. Paragraphing is poorly handled, with a dense, confusing central body block that dumps multiple disparate figures together. Cohesive devices are used mechanically and inaccurately, with repeated and disjointed transitional phrases such as 'while' and 'in contrast' appearing awkwardly at the start of clauses. Furthermore, referencing is unclear, making it difficult for the reader to follow which data points correspond to which years or crime types without constantly referring back to the prompt.
Lexical Resource: Band 5.0
The vocabulary used is limited and repetitive, relying heavily on basic terms like 'proportion', 'percentage', and 'crime' throughout the text. There are noticeable errors in word choice and collocation, such as 'dominant contribution', 'accounted low proportion', and 'peoportion'. Spelling mistakes like 'follwed' further detract from the quality of the writing. These lexical limitations and errors cause some difficulty for the reader in interpreting the specific data intended by the student, keeping the range minimally adequate for the task.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 4.5
The response displays a very limited range of sentence structures, with frequent attempts at complex or comparative structures resulting in faulty phrasing and ungrammatical constructions. There are frequent errors in verb forms, tense usage, articles, and prepositions inside grammatical patterns, such as 'the car crime perceived has the highest peoportion', 'has the 4% and 3% proportion', and 'as compare to others'. Punctuation and sentence boundaries are also poorly controlled, leading to fragmented expressions that frequently cause difficulty for the reader.
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.