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 bar graph illustrates perceived and actual likelihood of being a victim of different ( Burglary, Car, Violent ) Crime .

Overall, what stood out in the graph is that in all the crime types most of the people perceived danger of being crime. However in year 2009 and 2010, car crimes were perceived the most as compared to other years while burglary crime was actually recorded lowest in 2009 and 2010.

throughout the mentioned years, assumption of crimes flucture however in between 2009 to 2010 car crime were perceive 20 percent while it significantly drop to approximately 17 percent from 2010 to 2011. The actual percentage of crime remains less than 5 percent in these tenure.

The burglary and violent crime shows similar figure with more crimes were perceived than actual ones as in 2009 and 2010, burglary approximately accounted 15 percent of the crimes that never happened and same were the figure for voilent crimes. in year 2010 and 2011 the percentage drop significantly for both crimes as burglary reported around 12 percent and violent crimes were less than 5 %. The acutual crimes for both crime type were less than 5 percent .

To sum up with, The perceived propotion of being victim of crime is far more than actually being the victim.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

The response addresses all parts of the task by reporting the main features and making relevant comparisons across the categories. It successfully covers the overall trend that perceived danger is much higher than the actual likelihood of crime. However, some ideas are under-developed or imprecise, such as describing figures with loose approximations like 'around 12 percent' for burglary when referring to the 2010/11 perceived data, which was actually around 13 percent. Additionally, a few phrases like 'that never happened' oversimplify the statistical reality. The selection of data is generally good, satisfying the requirements for a solid mid-level score while showing glimpses of better overview synthesis.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.0

The response demonstrates a coherent overall arrangement with a clear attempt to structure the essay into an introduction, body paragraphs, and a concluding overview. However, cohesion is sometimes faulty or mechanical. For instance, transitional phrases such as 'throughout the mentioned years, assumption of crimes flucture' and 'To sum up with' sound awkward and lack natural flow. Referencing is occasionally unclear, and paragraphing could be managed more effectively to group related data logically. While the progression of ideas is discernible, the heavy reliance on basic linkers prevents the text from achieving a higher level of cohesive harmony.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

The vocabulary used is adequate for the task, but the range is limited. The student attempts some less common vocabulary, such as 'perceived', 'significantly', and 'proportion', but encounters noticeable errors in word choice, spelling, and word forms. Examples include 'flucture' instead of fluctuate, 'tenure' instead of period or timeframe, 'voilent' instead of violent, and 'acutual' instead of actual. These lexical inaccuracies and occasional spelling mistakes reflect a restricted control over word choice and collocation, keeping the lexical score at a modest level.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.0

The writer uses a mix of simple and complex sentence forms, demonstrating some attempt at complex structures such as contrastive clauses using 'whereas' or 'while'. However, there are frequent grammatical errors, particularly regarding tense consistency, prepositions, and subject-verb agreement. Examples include 'car crime were perceive 20 percent' (passive voice and agreement errors), 'burglary approximately accounted 15 percent', and punctuation issues within parentheses in the opening sentence. These errors do not completely impede communication, but they occur with enough frequency to restrict the writing to a band five level for grammatical accuracy.

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.