Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-04

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 5.5)

The bar charts illustrates how people think about crime and what is the reality behind it.

Overall , it can be noticed that in 2009/10 people precieving about car crime was the highest, as compared to burglary and violent crime. In reality it was at much lower than the people had tough about. Meanwhile, in 2010/11 individuals precieved more about car and thinking little about burglary, while in reality it remained lower.

In 2009/10, around 22% of inhabitants though car crime are more likely to happen as compared to about 17% in 2010/11. While in reality it was lower and was relatively same with round anout 4%. In addition arounf 15% of people believe burglary crime to be happen while it was arround 3% much lower than they have expected. Same for the violent crime exceptions were more but what happened was far lower.

In 2010/11 about 13% of the citizens expect burglary crime, while in reality it was about 3%. Meanwhile violent crime was expected by 15% of the victims but in actual life it was less than 5%.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

The response addresses all parts of the task by selecting and reporting the main features of the chart, providing comparisons between perceived and actual likelihoods of different crimes. The overview highlights the general trends, noting that car crime had the highest perceived danger and that actual crime rates were consistently lower than what people thought. However, some ideas are under-developed or vague, such as the sentence 'Same for the violent crime exceptions were more but what happened was far lower,' which lacks precise referencing. Furthermore, some data points are inaccurate or poorly supported; for instance, stating that 'around 22% of inhabitants though car crime are more likely' overstates the actual chart figure of approximately 21% for 2009/10, and generalisations are sometimes imprecise. These limitations keep the response at this level, as greater precision and fully extended descriptions are needed for a higher score.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response has a coherent overall arrangement and is divided into paragraphs, attempting to structure the overview and body details logically. However, cohesion is frequently faulty and mechanical. The flow between sentences is often hindered by awkward transitions and repetitive structures, such as the repeated use of 'while in reality it remained lower' and 'meanwhile'. Referencing is not always clear, particularly with pronouns and vague phrases like 'Same for the violent crime exceptions were more'. Paragraphing is present, but internal cohesion within paragraphs lacks seamless progression. To reach a higher band, the writer needs to employ a wider range of cohesive devices more accurately and ensure that logical relationships between sentences and ideas are smoother and clearer.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

The vocabulary used is adequate for the task, allowing the student to communicate basic comparisons about crime percentages. There are, however, numerous word choice, word form, and spelling errors throughout the text. Examples include 'precieving' instead of 'perceiving', 'tough' instead of 'thought', 'precieved', 'though' used instead of 'thought', and 'arround'. The student attempts some less common vocabulary related to statistics and crime, such as 'inhabitants' and 'citizens', but these attempts are marred by inaccuracies that reflect a limited and minimally adequate lexical range. To improve, the writer must focus on accurate word forms, correct spelling, and more precise lexical control when describing statistical data.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

The response displays a limited range of grammatical structures, relying primarily on simple sentences alongside some attempts at complex forms. These attempts at complex sentences are frequently faulty, leading to noticeable structural errors. Examples include subject-verb agreement issues and tense confusion in 'The bar charts illustrates', fragment-like clauses such as 'what is the reality behind it', and awkward phrasing in 'people precieving about car crime was the highest'. There are frequent errors in prepositions, articles, and clause structures that cause some difficulty for the reader, such as 'crime to be happen' and 'round anout 4%'. While communication is not entirely obscured, the grammar features frequent slips that prevent the text from achieving a higher level of accuracy and variety.

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.