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 graph illustrates the perceived and actual likehood of begin a victim of crime in 2009 and 2010.

Overall, car crime was the highest percentage rate as percevied and actual crime in both year, as compare two other crimes. while, both burglary and violent crime represented the similar proportion in both years.

In 2009 perceived rate of car crime was the highest proportion accounted for around, 21% whereas actual crime rate was only 4%, In additional crime rate in 2010 was slightly lower than 2009, both in preceived and actual by approximately, 17% and 4.5%. However, the crime by burglary in 2009 predection was around, 16% but the exact rate of crime was lower than expected by only 3% and in 2010 the noticed percentage of crime was around, 12% in actual it was only made up by 3%.

In contrast, the actual crime in 2010 by violent was slightly equall to the burglary by around 3% but the predection percentage of the crime was around,13%. In 2009 the believed crime was approximately, 15% while actual crime was only 2%.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.0

The response addresses all parts of the task by reporting the main features of perceived and actual crime data for both years. An overview is attempted, noting that car crime had the highest percentages. However, some parts of the task are developed more fully than others, and there are inaccuracies in quoting the data, such as stating that burglary prediction in 2009 was around 16% when the chart shows 15.5%. The comparisons between categories lack precision in places, leading to under-developed support for the overall trends. To reach a higher band, the student needs to ensure data points are cited more accurately and provide a more fully developed, cohesive overview without unsupported generalisations.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5.5

The response demonstrates a coherent overall arrangement with a recognisable introduction, body paragraphs, and an attempt at an overview. However, cohesion is sometimes faulty and mechanical, with awkward transitions such as 'In additional' and 'In contrast'. Paragraphing is present, but internal logical progression is occasionally hindered by confusing referencing and loose connections between sentences. For instance, jumping between years and crime types within the same paragraph makes the information flow less clearly. To improve, the student should use cohesive devices more naturally and structure paragraphs so that each focuses on a distinct, clearly linked trend or comparison.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

The vocabulary used is adequate for the task, allowing the student to communicate basic comparisons about crime percentages. However, there are noticeable limitations and errors in word choice, spelling, and word forms. Examples include spelling errors like 'likehood' instead of likelihood, 'percevied' instead of perceived, and 'predection' instead of prediction or perception. Word choice errors are also present, such as 'crime by burglary' instead of the rate of burglary. The range of vocabulary is restricted, and attempts at less common items result in inaccuracies. To achieve a higher band, the student must expand their vocabulary range, improve spelling control, and use more precise lexical items suited to academic data reporting.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

The student uses a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, attempting comparative structures and multi-clause sentences. However, there are frequent errors in grammar and punctuation throughout the text. Examples include missing articles and prepositions, such as 'highest percentage rate as percevied and actual crime in both year', subject-verb agreement issues like 'crime rate in 2010 was slightly lower... both in preceived and actual', and awkward punctuation with unnecessary commas like 'around, 21%'. While these errors rarely impede overall communication entirely, they occur regularly. To move up, the student needs greater control over sentence structures, accurate prepositional usage, and improved punctuation to increase the proportion of error-free sentences.

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.