Band 6.0 IELTS Writing Task 1 Model Answer

Overall Band Score: 6.0 · IELTS Summit Mastery · 2026-10-07

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 6.0)

The bar graph illustrates the prediction of danger and living the life of an actual victim of a crime.

Overall, the graph demonstrates the highest prediction in each crime while the happening of actual crimes remaines very low. Significantly,the preceived danger in car crimes are dominating the bar graph.

To begin with, the perceived danger in car crimes are at the peak with more than 20 % in the year 2009 to 2010, whereas the actual percentage of car crimes remains lower than 5 % in the same years. Furthermore, the prediction of danger about car crimes in the year 2010 to 2011 was above 15 % while the car crimes that actually happened in the year 2010 and 2011 were less than 5 %. In addition, predicted danger in violent crimes is slighlightly above than 15% in the year 2009 and 2010 however the percentage of actual viloent crimes in these years is fewer than 4%. Similarly, the prediction of violent crimes in year 2010 to 2011 is approximately 13 percentage which is a lot higher than the actual violent crimes in the same years.

Moving on,the prediction of danger in burglary is similar to violent crime in year 2009 to 2010 whereas the the percentage of actual burglary is nearly 2% in year 2009 and 2010. The perceived danger in burglary in the year 2010 and 2011 is around 13% while the actual burglary crime is 3% in same year.

AI examiner evaluation

Task Achievement / Task Response: Band 6.5

You identify the main pattern accurately: perceived risk is much higher than actual victimisation, and car crime has the highest perceived figures. The overview also notes that actual rates remain low, which captures an important feature. Most comparisons are supported with broadly accurate figures, including car crime above 20% versus below 5% in 2009/10 and burglary perception around 13% in 2010/11. However, some details are imprecise: actual burglary in 2010/11 is about 2.5%, not 3%, and the response does not clearly compare how the figures changed between years across all crime types. The overview could also state that actual rates changed only slightly. This is a relevant, well-focused summary, but some features are developed more fully than others.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 6.5

The response has a clear overall structure: an introduction, an overview, and two body paragraphs that group the crime types. Sequencing phrases such as “To begin with” and “Moving on” help the reader follow the shift from car and violent crime to burglary. Comparisons within sentences are also generally easy to understand. However, the linking is somewhat mechanical, with repeated “Furthermore,” “In addition,” and “Similarly,” rather than relationships being expressed more flexibly. Some references are unclear, particularly “in the same years” after a comparison involving two different periods. A more systematic organisation—such as comparing perceived and actual figures for each period, or explicitly contrasting year-on-year changes—would make progression more precise and cohesive.

Lexical Resource: Band 5.0

You use relevant vocabulary for describing the chart, including “perceived danger,” “actual percentage,” “peak,” and “approximately.” However, several word choices and collocations are inaccurate or unnatural, which limits precision: “prediction of danger” is less suitable than “perceived risk,” and “living the life of an actual victim” does not clearly describe the data. There are also spelling errors, including “preceived,” “slighlightly,” and “viloent,” and some repetition of “danger” and “crimes.” Aim for concise chart language and check spelling carefully. More precise terms such as “likelihood,” “victimisation rate,” and “remained below” would help you describe the figures naturally and consistently.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5.5

You attempt a mix of simple and complex sentences, including comparisons with “whereas” and “while,” and most of the intended meaning can be followed. Some grammatical errors remain, particularly subject–verb agreement: “the perceived danger … are” should be “is,” and “the happening of actual crimes remaines” should be “remains.” There are also problems with articles, plurals, and sentence construction, as in “the the percentage” and “in year 2010 to 2011.” Punctuation is occasionally missing after transitions, as in “Significantly,the” and “Moving on,the.” These errors do not generally prevent understanding, but more consistent agreement, article use, and punctuation would improve control, especially in longer comparison 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.