Band 5.5 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 5.5 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-05

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 graph below illustrates the sense of fear and actual probability of being a target of crime.

In year 2009/10 the percentage for burglary victim was perceived 15 percent. While the actual victim of burglary was no more than 3 percent.In year 2010/11 the perceived victims of burglary were about 13 percent. In contrast the percentage of victims of burglary in 2010/11 were around 3 percent.

In year 2009/10 the perceived percentage of victims of car crime reached its peak and it was more than 20 percent. where as the actual car crime victim percentage was 4.5 percent more or less. In year 2010/11 the perceived percentage for car crime victim was around 17 percent. where as actual percentage of car crime victim was around 4 percent.

Sensed percentage for violent crime in 2009/10 was about 15 percent but actual percentage of violent crime victim was about 3 percent. While in year 2010/11 the assumed percentage of violent crime was around 13 percent. In reality the violent crime victim percentage was no more than 4 percent.

Overall, The assumed percentages for every crime was higher than the actual crime percentage for every year the assumption for crime victims and the real victim percentage was marginally different.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 5.5

The response addresses the main parts of the task by selecting key data points regarding perceived and actual crime rates for burglary, car crime, and violent crime across two years. However, the development of ideas is somewhat limited, and certain comparisons are repetitive or under-developed. For instance, the discussion of burglary and violent crime lists isolated percentages without fully synthesising the broader trends. The overview provided at the end attempts to summarise the main finding that perceived danger exceeded actual likelihood, but it contains contradictory phrasing regarding the margin of difference. To progress, the response needs to offer a more fully extended and sophisticated comparison of the overall patterns rather than listing data points mechanically.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The text demonstrates a coherent overall arrangement with a clear paragraph structure separating different crime types and the final overview. Logical progression is established by grouping data by years and crime categories. However, cohesion is at times mechanical, relying heavily on repetitive sentence openings such as 'In year...' and 'While in year...'. Referencing is generally functional, but the flow between sentences could be smoother with a greater variety of cohesive devices. To reach a higher band, the writer should use more sophisticated referencing and transitional phrases to connect ideas more naturally across paragraphs without overusing rigid chronological formulas.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.5

The vocabulary used is adequate for the task, successfully conveying basic concepts related to crime statistics. The writer attempts some less common vocabulary, such as 'perceived', 'probability', and 'reached its peak', but also exhibits noticeable inaccuracies in word choice and phrasing, such as 'sense of fear and actual probability of being a target of crime' and 'Sensed percentage'. There are occasional awkward collocations and repetition of words like 'percentage', 'perceived', and 'actual'. To improve lexical resource, the writer should incorporate a wider variety of synonyms and demonstrate more precise control over less common lexical items related to data reporting.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

The writing displays a limited range of sentence structures, relying mostly on simple and straightforward compound sentences. When complex structures are attempted, they often contain grammatical inaccuracies or awkward phrasing, such as missing articles ('In year 2009/10') and punctuation errors like missing full stops or starting sentences with lowercase letters. There are frequent errors in prepositions and agreement across the text. While these errors rarely impede overall communication, the persistence of basic grammatical lapses keeps the control at a lower level. To achieve a higher score, the writer must demonstrate greater variety in complex sentence patterns while maintaining accuracy in verb forms, articles, and punctuation.

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.